Windows 10. Horrible!

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I was visiting with a neice today who does web design.
She uses only Apple products,

do you call her an apple seed too?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Sounds like low expectations: "I love my new
| car. There are minor glitches, like the fact that
| it refuses to go anywhere without first visiting
| the dealership for a salespitch, but aside from
| that it's great!" ...."Well, I have to give them
| personal information or it won't start. But aside
| from that it's great!".... "Well, it took some time
| to figure out how to remove the growing number
| of ads showing up on the dashboard.
|
| what ads? i've yet to see a single ad in win10.

I rest my case. It's the slow-boiling frog approach.
You don't even notice. You probably won't see 1-minute
videos for cars any time soon, but look at typical
Start Menu and tiles:

https://www.pcmag.com/article/351216...-in-windows-10

there are no ads in my start menu.

i don't remember if there were any ads when i first installed win10,
but if there were, they're long gone.



You're probably at more risk

i'm actually *less* at risk because unlike you, i understand how things
work and know how to block what i don't want.

as an Apple fan because
you're used to a product that's designed to keep you
in their private AOL-style shopping venue.

nonsense.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


The mega-corporate ad/tech companies' only interest
in your privacy is for PR purposes. For instance, Tim
Cook was happy to share iPhone data with the gov't.

absolutely false.

apple does not give out user information to anyone unless there is a
legal warrant requiring them to do so. period. full stop.

absent a warrant, nothing is shared.

also, apple can only give out what's backed up on their servers. if a
user doesn't use apple's servers for backups or storage, or if an app
doesn't connect with apple at all, there's nothing for apple to give
out.

some data that's on apple's servers is encrypted with keys apple does
not have, so even though apple might be able to give someone 'data' in
response to a warrant, that data is still encrypted and neither apple
nor the recipient will be able to do anything with it.

ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption
keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from
the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be
able to do anything with it.

that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions
of years to crack.

He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand.

exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting.

For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special
cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest
breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a
terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little
girls?

apple.

Once they publicly win cases like that they have
a precedent.

which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent.

in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
claim that was clearly false.

had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what
the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of
which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both.

Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook
have no reason to care about that. They only care about
whether you think they care and whether it might threaten
your use of their product.

google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is
monetizing users by selling ads.

apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware,
software and services. they do *not* monetize users.

microsoft is somewhere in the middle.

for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
are your only option.

On 11/26/2017 2:05 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption
keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from
the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be
able to do anything with it.

that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions
of years to crack.


There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding
the Enigma code; ‎Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc


He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand.

exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting.

For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special
cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest
breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a
terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little
girls?

apple.

Once they publicly win cases like that they have
a precedent.

which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent.

in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
claim that was clearly false.

So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy.




had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what
the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of
which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both.

You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.)
"Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple’s
intervention, the All Writs Act doesn’t work, making the original
request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook’s data,
there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation
will follow its course."
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/justice-department-drops-lawsuit-against-apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/





Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook
have no reason to care about that. They only care about
whether you think they care and whether it might threaten
your use of their product.

google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is
monetizing users by selling ads.

apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware,
software and services. they do *not* monetize users.

microsoft is somewhere in the middle.

for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
are your only option.

Nope

--
PeterN

"PeterN" wrote

| in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
| they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
| despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
| claim that was clearly false.
|
| So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy.
|

There are some different angles on it:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-...0-times-before

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple agreed to do it under the
table. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Feds's Israeli
Stuxnet partner did actually crack it. In any case, it's
not over. The Feds will keep coming back whenever they
think there's a case that will give them public support.

Maybe they'll need a terrorist who *also* eats babies
for the next test case. Whatever it is, I'm sure they'll
make a public scene once they have a good test case.

The problem for the public is that both gov't and
tech companies have a common vested interest in the
public having no rights when it comes to the Internet
and devices. They also both have a vested interest in
making you believe that you can trust them to be
generally honest and decent. They want to spy and
they don't want you to know. Not a good scenario for
us. And not a scenario that makes trust a rational
option.

| for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
| are your only option.
|
| Nope

Indeed. What's the difference between Apple and
Google? Google spies on everything and sells it to
advertisers. Apple spies on everything and then use
it themselves while shouting about how much they
respect their customers. Google want to own you.
Apple think they do own you. And they both ship
data to the NSA through PRISM.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption
keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from
the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be
able to do anything with it.

that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions
of years to crack.

There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding
the Enigma code; ?Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc

you clearly have very little understanding of modern encryption or how
ios devices work.

He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand.

exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting.

For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special
cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest
breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a
terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little
girls?

apple.

Once they publicly win cases like that they have
a precedent.

which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent.

in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
claim that was clearly false.

So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy.

i read apple's and the fbi's briefs and responses as well as numerous
amicus briefs, watched the entire congressional testimony, where the
fbi made *numerous* false statements (all under oath), listened and
watched numerous podcasts discussing the case, including podcasts
hosted by attorneys, as well as having a very solid understanding of
ios device security and encryption and how the fbi actually got into
the phone (via a third party) using a well known technique which the
fbi should have known about. the fact that they did not means their
either incompetent or lying (or both), none of which is good.

what knowledge do you bring to the table?
(hint: none).

had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what
the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of
which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both.

You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.)

i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit
more that's going on.

"Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple¹s
intervention, the All Writs Act doesn¹t work, making the original
request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook¹s data,
there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation
will follow its course."

https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...uit-against-ap
ple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/

that doesn't contradict what i've said.

in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said.

you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard.

in other words, you haven't any clue.

Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook
have no reason to care about that. They only care about
whether you think they care and whether it might threaten
your use of their product.

google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is
monetizing users by selling ads.

apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware,
software and services. they do *not* monetize users.

microsoft is somewhere in the middle.

for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
are your only option.

Nope

there is nothing 'nope' about what i said.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
| they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
| despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
| claim that was clearly false.
|
| So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy.

There are some different angles on it:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/apple-...s-70-times-bef
ore

that article is misleading.

apple could unlock older ios devices, which were not as secure as newer
ones.

ios security has evolved and continues to evolve.

it is no longer possible for apple (or anyone else) to unlock an iphone
without the correct passcode, unless they get *very* *very* lucky.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple agreed to do it under the
table.

they absolutely did not, nor would they even consider such a thing.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the Feds's Israeli
Stuxnet partner did actually crack it.

the company is believed to be cellebrite, who used a well known
exploit, one that the fbi *should* have known about without even
needing to hire a third party company, one which the fbi should have
been able to do on their own with readily available equipment.

the fbi clearly did not 'try everything'. they simply latched onto the
case to attempt to set a precedent and it backfired big time.

In any case, it's
not over. The Feds will keep coming back whenever they
think there's a case that will give them public support.

they can try all they want, but that doesn't mean they'll prevail.

Maybe they'll need a terrorist who *also* eats babies
for the next test case. Whatever it is, I'm sure they'll
make a public scene once they have a good test case.

that's exactly what they're waiting for.

that doesn't mean it will work.

The problem for the public is that both gov't and
tech companies have a common vested interest in the
public having no rights when it comes to the Internet
and devices. They also both have a vested interest in
making you believe that you can trust them to be
generally honest and decent. They want to spy and
they don't want you to know. Not a good scenario for
us. And not a scenario that makes trust a rational
option.

some tech companies. not all of them.

apple goes well out of their way to *not* collect user data, which
means they *can't* share it because they *don't* *have* *it*.

simple example; scene recognition with google photos and apple photos

with google photos, the user uploads images to google, which does scene
recognition on google's very powerful servers. that also lets google
collect all sorts of data about users, including locations where the
photos were taken, face recognition and identification of people in the
photos, any pets and what kind, etc. it's a gold mine of data.

with apple photos, it's the *opposite*. scene recognition is done
entirely *on* *the* *device* itself. nothing is sent to apple and there
is no data for apple to collect.

another example: apple maps. when a user requests a route in apple
maps, it's split into two halves and they are processed separately,
using a randomly generated session id that is *not* tied to the user.
anyone at apple who is working on routing algorithms can't see entire
routes. furthermore, the precise origin and destination locations are
fuzzed so that identification by street address cannot be done.

| for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
| are your only option.
|
| Nope

Indeed. What's the difference between Apple and
Google?

apple makes money by selling hardware, software and services.

google makes money by selling ads. the *user* is the product.

Google spies on everything and sells it to
advertisers.

other than calling it spying (it's not), that is true. google collects
and sells data.

Apple spies on everything and then use
it themselves while shouting about how much they
respect their customers.

absolutely false.

apple does not spy on anything. they do not collect user data and do
not share anything they might have that users have provided.

Google want to own you.
Apple think they do own you. And they both ship
data to the NSA through PRISM.

prism is something else entirely, and since apple uses end to end
encryption, there's not a lot that the nsa is going to get.

On 11/26/2017 10:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

ios devices are fully encrypted by default, and without the encryption
keys, which apple also does not have nor can the keys be extracted from
the device, all they'll get is encrypted data, and as above, not be
able to do anything with it.

that leaves brute forcing the encryption, which will take many billions
of years to crack.

There are those who unsuccessfully relied upon the same theory regarding
the Enigma code; ?Red code; JN-25; JN-39; JN-40, etc

you clearly have very little understanding of modern encryption or how
ios devices work.

He just had to refuse once they made it a public demand.

exactly what he did two years ago, with the san bernardino shooting.

For the gov't's part, making it a public demand in special
cases gets their foot in the door. Who's going to protest
breaking the encryption on a cellphone owned by a
terrorist who killled dozens, or by a cannibal who eats little
girls?

apple.

Once they publicly win cases like that they have
a precedent.

which is why apple fought the fbi, to *prevent* such a precedent.

in fact, apple's case was *so* strong, that the fbi, upon realizing
they were about to lose, suddenly 'found' a way to get into the iphone,
despite having testified under oath that they 'tried everything', a
claim that was clearly false.

So says someone with inside knowledge of the FBI's legal strategy.

i read apple's and the fbi's briefs and responses as well as numerous
amicus briefs, watched the entire congressional testimony, where the
fbi made *numerous* false statements (all under oath), listened and
watched numerous podcasts discussing the case, including podcasts
hosted by attorneys, as well as having a very solid understanding of
ios device security and encryption and how the fbi actually got into
the phone (via a third party) using a well known technique which the
fbi should have known about. the fact that they did not means their
either incompetent or lying (or both), none of which is good.

what knowledge do you bring to the table?
(hint: none).

had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what
the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of
which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both.

You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.)

i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit
more that's going on.

"Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple¹s
intervention, the All Writs Act doesn¹t work, making the original
request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook¹s data,
there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation
will follow its course."

https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...uit-against-ap
ple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/

that doesn't contradict what i've said.

in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said.

you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard.

in other words, you haven't any clue.


The extent of my knowledge of cipher is irrelevant to the fact that the
iOS encryption was broken, and you won't admit being wrong.


Companies like MS/Apple/Google/Facebook
have no reason to care about that. They only care about
whether you think they care and whether it might threaten
your use of their product.

google and facebook, yes, because their entire business model is
monetizing users by selling ads.

apple definitely not. apple makes their money selling hardware,
software and services. they do *not* monetize users.

microsoft is somewhere in the middle.

for someone like you, who is concerned about privacy, apple products
are your only option.

Nope

there is nothing 'nope' about what i said.

The subject is Your claim about why the case was dropped. Your avoidance
tactics do not change one iota that your claim is false. The Apple
cipher was broken, the FBI had the unencrypted message. Therefore, the
case was moot.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

had it gone to trial, the precedent would have been *opposite* to what
the fbi wanted, along with the fbi caught lying under oath, neither of
which was a desirable outcome for the fbi, certainly not both.

You must never have red this: (We all know you would never lie.)

i did 'red' it, but unlike you, i understood it, along with quite a bit
more that's going on.

"Now that the FBI has found a successful alternative to Apple1s
intervention, the All Writs Act doesn1t work, making the original
request invalid. And of course, now that the FBI has Farook1s data,
there is no case in the first place. The San Bernardino investigation
will follow its course."


https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/ju...wsuit-against-
apple-over-iphone-unlocking-case/

that doesn't contradict what i've said.

in fact, it confirms *exactly* what i said.

you're desperately trying to argue and failing rather hard.

in other words, you haven't any clue.

The extent of my knowledge of cipher is irrelevant to the fact that the
iOS encryption was broken, and you won't admit being wrong.

it wasn't, and i'm not wrong.

i know *far* more about ios security along with the details of this
particular case than you do.

what the fbi did was *guess* the correct 4 digit pin code by trying
each of the 10,000 possibilities until they found the correct one.

that is *very* different than cracking the actual encryption keys,
something which, as i said, would have taken billions of years.

the problem the fbi had was being able to do that without the phone
locking up and potentially erasing itself.

as you probably know (although others might not), ios devices only
allow 10 failed guesses before locking up, disallowing *any* additional
guesses, with increasing delays between guesses starting after the 5th
failed attempt, extending to as long as 24 hours by the 10th attempt.

this is intentional, so that guessing a passcode is not possible unless
someone gets *very* lucky in the first several tries.

further complicating things, is that each attempt at guessing the
passcode *must* be manually be tapped in on the iphone's display.

it is *not* possible to copy the encrypted contents and use a
supercomputer to run through all 10,000 pin codes in a fraction of a
second. it simply won't work.

it is also *not* possible to copy the encrypted contents to other
iphones, so that multiple people can work in parallel. the actual
encryption key is unique per device, even if the same pin code is used
on each of them.

as it turns out, the iphone in question was an older iphone 5c, which
lacks a secure enclave. that means it was possible to reset the failed
attempt counter using a fairly well known technique, which uses
additional hardware and partial disassembly of the phone.

it is *not* simply writing a 0 to a specific spot in memory, nor is the
pin code stored anywhere in memory to be extracted.

in fact, this technique is so well known, that during the congressional
testimony, one of the congressmen asked the fbi if that had been tried,
which it obviously had not.

in other words, the fbi stated under oath that they 'tried everything'
and 'needed apple to unlock it' (thus the lawsuit), but then also under
oath, stated that they had *not* tried a well known method, one which
was *suggested* *by* *congress*, of all things.

to say that the fbi's case was weak is an understatement.

this technique will *not* work on newer iphones which have a secure
enclave (5s & later), thereby preventing the counter from being reset.
after 10 failed attempts, game over.

that means with a recent iphone, the only option is brute forcing the
actual encryption keys, something which will take billions of years.

i can go into *far* more detail, but suffice it to say, you haven't
*any* clue about how it all works, what was done to circumvent the
counter or how the fbi perjured themselves multiple times.

On 11/27/2017 11:08 PM, nospam wrote:


Rant sniped


I didn't realize you knew the extent of my knowledge.


--
PeterN