The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act. "Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its products apart from competitors," the plaintiff, Elliot Libman, said in the suit, which can be read on Bloomberg Law. "But Apple's privacy guarantees are completely illusory." The company has plastered billboards across the
country with the slogan "Privacy. That's iPhone."
badgolferman wrote:
The lawsuit accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy
Act. "Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its products >> apart from competitors," the plaintiff, Elliot Libman, said in the suit,
which can be read on Bloomberg Law. "But Apple's privacy guarantees are
completely illusory." The company has plastered billboards across the
country with the slogan "Privacy. That's iPhone."
Hi badgolferman,
Thanks for informing us of yet another lawsuit for brazen Apple lies.
*Nobody lies like Apple lies.*
The Apple iKooks are already scrambling to come up with their seven excuses for facts about Apple that they are desperate to deny & deflect away from.
Notwithstanding the legal merits of the case, the problem as I see it with Apple is their duplicity in their brazen public lies about iOS privacy.
The amount of personal information tracked by Apple is astounding. Particularly for an outfit that (falsely) advertises their take on privacy.
Unfortunately for us, almost everything Apple claims about iOS privacy
turns out to be a brazen public lie when you delve deeper, e.g., the _requirement_ to be tracked by Apple just to download apps is heinous.
And yet, Apple assumes that we're all stupid just by the fact Apple emits these brazen shockingly public lies (and often loses in court as a result).
In summary, what irks me about Apple isn't that they steal your privacy,
but that, like a salesman, they promise you they won't (and yet, they do).
In summary, what irks me about Apple isn't that they steal your privacy,
but that, like a salesman, they promise you they won't (and yet, they do).
Well, maybe there's another side to the story. Let's wait to hear from
nospam and Jolly Roger.
Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from >nospam and Jolly Roger.
badgolferman wrote:
Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from >> nospam and Jolly Roger.
I guess there is no other side of the story.
Even nospam can't defend Apple's betrayal of privacy claims.
Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple
and it's advertising customers.
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.
badgolferman wrote:
Well, maybe there’s another side to the story. Let’s wait to hear from >> nospam and Jolly Roger.
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might opine.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
opine.
Here you are: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that >>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit >>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might
opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend >>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that >>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit >>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might >>>>> opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
I don't know.
Because I don't know what we'll see.
But let me ask you this:
In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
might being sent in plain text?
And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
what *is* known (and can easily be substantiated) is that apple takes extensive measures to anonymize as much about their users as possible
so that they *can't* be tracked.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend >>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that >>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit >>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might >>>> opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't defend >>>>>>> Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care that >>>>>>> they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for profit >>>>>>> by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have >>>>>> anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i might >>>>>> opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
I don't know.
Because I don't know what we'll see.
But let me ask you this:
In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
might being sent in plain text?
And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.
nospam wrote:
what *is* known (and can easily be substantiated) is that apple takes
extensive measures to anonymize as much about their users as possible
so that they *can't* be tracked.
If you read the links that badgolferman posted, there is a _lot_ that is known that was tested by multiple independent outfits, completely _outside_ the context of the legal case in and of itself.
Normally you and the other iKooks have a ready made set of seven excuses which range from denial to ad hominem attacks as you run through them.
The question for you, I believe, is _which excuse_ will you be exercising
to defend Apple's behavior to the death, no matter what the facts may be?
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
a given app and how long you looked at the apps page.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
paragraph 66 states that plaintiffs have suffered harm, including loss
of money and/or property, something which is quite a stretch.
badgolferman wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
Hi badgolferman,
The problem is that nobody lies like Apple lies - but at least Apple is forced to finally tell the truth in court - which nospam never has to do.
Due to my killfiles, I don't see Alan Baker's outright denials of all facts he hates about Apple, where it's clear in your inclusion of his denials,
that Alan didn't read the evidence Gizmodo and Mysk clearly provided.
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
But let me ask you this:
In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
might being sent in plain text?
And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that
people's personal information is being transmitted make that
assertion, exactly?
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you
see, how you found a given app and how long you looked at the app’s
page.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't
defend Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just
don't care that they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and
being used for profit by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have
anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i
might opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found
a given app and how long you looked at the apps page.
On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including >> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found >> a given app and how long you looked at the app┬ page.
What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?
Are you under the laughable impression that most apps *don't* track what
you do inside of them?
What do you think Apple does with this information that others don't do
with it?
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
they are correct.
On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam wrote:
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
they are correct.
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?
On 2022-11-13 09:08, Nil wrote:
On 13 Nov 2022, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time, including >>> what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you found >>> a given app and how long you looked at the app┬ page.
What do you think about the unique header Apple inserts into all your apps?
Got any proof of that or that if it is, it is in any way relevant to
your privacy?
On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam wrote:
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees
precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
they are correct.
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?
On 12 Nov 2022, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.privacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
paragraph 66 states that plaintiffs have suffered harm, including loss
of money and/or property, something which is quite a stretch.
If you paid more for an iPhone because Apple told you they weren't
tracking
you and if it turned out that they were tracking you, did you suffer
harm?
On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
On 13/11/2022 at 01:22, Alan wrote:
Here you are:And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
Of course. Until a case is finished any allegations will only be
assertions. After the case has completed there will be a judgement.
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employees precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 18:45, badgolferman wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-12 17:02, badgolferman wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <tkp5di$18eev$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess there is no other side of the story. Even nospam can't
defend
Apple's betrayal of privacy claims. Or maybe they just don't care >>>>>>> that
they are willingly being tracked, catalogued, and being used for >>>>>>> profit
by Apple and it's advertising customers.
i didn't read the briefs nor have i researched it, so i don't have >>>>>> anything to say about it.
post a link to the plaintiff's brief and apple's reply and then i
might
opine.
Here you are:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-hit-with-class-action-over-tracking-of-mobile-app-activity
Links to documents within. No response from Apple yet.
And what you have there are ASSERTIONS...
...not proven facts.
We shall see. What will you say then?
I don't know.
Because I don't know what we'll see.
But let me ask you this:
In this day and age, do you think Apple is sending whatever data that
might being sent in plain text?
And if it isn't in plain text, then how do those asserting that people's
personal information is being transmitted make that assertion, exactly?
As seen in a video posted to the Mysk YouTube Channel, the App Store
appears to harvest information about your activity in real time,
including
what you tap on, which apps you search for, what ads you see, how you
found
a given app and how long you looked at the app’s page.
On 13/11/2022 12:41, nospam wrote:
The organization I work for assigns iPhones to many of its employeesthey are correct.
precisely because they think the phones are more secure and proprietary
information and communications are safe from prying eyes.
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more private and yet they were actually much less private,
are they then harmed?
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then harmed?
There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
harmed?
There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports. https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558
On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they are
more private and yet they were actually much less private, are they
then harmed?
There's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they areThere's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
harmed?
The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports. https://www.apple.com/privacy/
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:21:43 +1100, Calum
<com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
On 13/11/2022 13:30, Jolly Roger wrote:
If they paid more for those iPhones because Apple only said they areThere's no evidence they are supposedly less private. You lose.
more
private and yet they were actually much less private, are they then
harmed?
The evidence is in Apple's web site and in the published reports.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558
That provides NO evidence that they are less private, JUST
that apple does keep track of how you use the app store so
that they can make it more useful to app store users.
This is also the difference in Google and Apple, Apple shares data in a
way thats usually useless outside of app development, and developers generally cant track back.
Cites?
Try this.
*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem* <https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
Jolly Roger wrote:
This is also the difference in Google and Apple, Apple shares data in a
way that�s usually useless outside of app development, and developers
generally can�t track back.
Why is it the iKooks always use the excuse that Apple is as bad or worse
than Google whenever iKooks feel the need to defend iOS' lack of privacy?
Doesn't Apple own free will?
If you listen to the iKooks, Apple has no free will.
The iKooks constantly tell us Apple sucks at privacy as much as Google.
And yet, isn't it a well known obvious fact that only Apple mobile devices _force_ you to log into their servers every day just so that Apple _can_
(and does) track you in innumerable ways? (some even worse than Google)
*Only Apple iOS requires you to be tracked by the mothership EVERY DAY!*
Cites?
Try this.
*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem* <https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
On 2022-11-14 16:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
Your cite doesn't even talk about the things you assert.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-14 16:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
Your cite doesn't even talk about the things you assert.
They never do. Troll boy just looks up headlines that LOOK like they support his claims. But he never reads them.
Apparently he is dumb enough to think that no one else will read them
either. Like we will just take his word.
As if.
On 2022-11-15, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2022-11-14 16:47, Andy Burnelli wrote:
*Apple Still Has a Privacy Problem*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>
While the iKooks never have cites for their claims, I have more.
Just ask.
Your cite doesn't even talk about the things you assert.
They never do. Troll boy just looks up headlines that LOOK like they
support his claims. But he never reads them.
Apparently he is dumb enough to think that no one else will read them
either. Like we will just take his word.
As if.
That's exactly it: he actually thinks everyone else is just as gullible
as he is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:27:21 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,380 |
| Messages: | 5,432,022 |