In article <sepqdp$j37$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > But again, I'm waiting to see actual details on the hash.
>
> You can be certain that you will not see those actual details.

you can be certain that you are once again wrong.

apple published the actual details, which have been reviewed by
cryptography experts and others.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sepdm1$m85$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?
>>>
>>> they're not. only those trafficking child porn need to be worried.
>>>
>>> for everyone else, there is no intrusion.
>>>
>>> do you have another solution for finding such people?
>>>
>>>> Let them
>>>> do that to those who have been suspected of such things, and only AFTER a
>>>> court order has been issued.
>>>
>>> which will happen only if someone is caught uploading child porn.
>>>
>>>> They are placing a file on your device and
>>>> using precious resources (RAM, CPU, data) to perform a scanning task.
>>>
>>> apple places a lot of files on your device, as do many, many other
>>> companies. that's how computers work.
>>>
>>> computing a hash uses a negligible amount of resources, nothing that
>>> ever would be noticed.
>>>
>>> the time to upload the photo is both longer and more processor
>>> intensive.
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> are all now pronounced guilty to the point of surveillance without any
>>>> cause or proof.
>>>
>>> nope.
>>>
>>
>> This is hilarious! You will defend anything Apple does to the death! Is
>> there anything they do which is unacceptable and worthy of your scorn?
>
> what you said is incorrect.
>
> incorrect statements get refuted.
>
> it's perfectly fine to be critical of the *actual* issues involved, but
> nothing you said falls into that category.
>
> what is your solution to the problem?
>
>> Why is this action even necessary?
>
> because there are people in this world who create and distribute child
> porn.
>
> in the days of film photography, photo labs would report anything
> questionable, including photos of parent's own kids in the bathtub.
>
> digital photography eliminates the photo labs, which has made it
> incredibly easy to create and distribute anything, both good and bad.
>
> it's also not new and not just apple.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA>
> PhotoDNA is an image-identification technology used for detecting
> child pornography and other illegal content which is reported to the
> National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) as required
> by law. It was developed by Microsoft Research and Hany Farid,
> professor at Dartmouth College, beginning in 2009.
> ...
> It is used on Microsoft's own services including Bing and
> OneDrive, as well as by Google's Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, Adobe
> Systems, Reddit, Discord and the NCMEC, to whom Microsoft donated
> the technology.
>
>> I am not defending child porn whatsoever
>> and think people engaging in such activities should be castrated.
>
> how do you propose finding such people?
>
> how is your solution better than what apple, google, facebook, twitter,
> etc. are doing?
>
> you do have a better solution, don't you?
>
> note that those companies are not all doing it in the same ways, so be
> sure to highlight the good and bad parts of each system.
>
> to get you started, here's a very bad way:
> several years ago, facebook addressed revenge porn by asking people to
> send in their own nude photos which might be used against them by
> others. that was a very stupid and horribly tone-deaf idea.
>
>> But I
>> resent the very thought that Apple has decided to scan my pictures
>> whatsoever. Who made them the investigator of any crime, especially a crime
>> which hasn¹t even been committed?
>
> they're not scanning your photos.
>
> what they're doing is generating a cryptographic hash for photos
> uploaded to icloud and checking to see if that hash (not the photo) is
> in a database of known child porn.
>
> it's not possible for apple or anyone else to see the contents of the
> photos.
>
> photos of your own kids in the bathtub will not be in such a database
> and not flagged for anything.
>
> if a sufficient number of images match (more than just one, but the
> number is undisclosed), then a manual review process occurs to see if
> it really is child porn and if it is, it's referred to law enforcement.
>
> do you have a better solution? if so, let's hear it.
>
> apple, google, etc., would also be interested.
>
> keep in mind that some stores use facial recognition to flag known
> shoplifters and other criminals they don't want on their property.
> stores also track how many times you buy and return stuff and if you
> abuse that, you're blocked from future transactions, possibly being
> banned from the properties. cops use license plate recognition to find
> stolen cars and other types of crimes. each time you use a credit card,
> the transaction and what you bought is tracked by the bank and
> advertisers they partner with.
>
> next time you park in a shopping center to buy shoes, you've been
> checked against various databases, even though you are not guilty of
> any crimes.
>

You keep asking for another solution, but I say why is Apple even involved
in this? This is a law enforcement issue and the onus is on them to
identify criminals, not a phone company. Is Apple now an arm of law
enforcement or are they deciding on their own to find criminals?

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 11:04:34, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>'Apple has found a way to detect and report CSAM offenders while
>respecting these privacy constraints. When the number of user photos
>that are in the CSAM database exceeds the threshold, the system is able
>to detect and report this. Yet a user photo that is not in the CSAM
>database remains invisible to the system, and users do not learn the
>contents of the CSAM database.'
[]
What's to stop an unscrupulous government - or agency - stuffing the
CSAM database (or their own local equivalent) with, say, the
Anarchists's Cookbook, Republican Party literature, Democratic party
literature, LGBTQ+ material ... even pretty innocent stuff ...

EITHER so as to get people they don't like accused of child porn, and
thus lose almost any public support (people don't support those even
_accused_ of this one),

OR, in the case of the less desirable governments, to use this
_technology_ to find, say, gay people.

(Don't tell me "those aren't pictures". The _technology_ doesn't care.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Windows 10 is the gift that keeps on giving." Like the clap.
- Paul in alt.comp.os.windows-10 and comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and
alt.windows7.general, 2020-10-13

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 17:24:04, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
>photos to Apple's servers.
[]
If this is actually true, then surely, it's fairly ineffective, as child
pornographers will just stop using Apple's servers?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Windows 10 is the gift that keeps on giving." Like the clap.
- Paul in alt.comp.os.windows-10 and comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and
alt.windows7.general, 2020-10-13

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 11:15:45, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>On 2021-08-08 11:05 a.m., sms wrote:
[]
>> But what Apple is planning, scanning content stored locally on your
>>device, is more than a little creepy.
>
>Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
>child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.
[]
>Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching
>process is performed for that image against the unreadable set of known
[]
So _is_ it only done "if you use iCloud Photos", or "Before an image is
stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process ..." - so is it
"an on-device matching process", or "only if you use iCloud Photos"? I
don't understand how it can be both "only"s.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Windows 10 is the gift that keeps on giving." Like the clap.
- Paul in alt.comp.os.windows-10 and comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage and
alt.windows7.general, 2020-10-13

On 2021-08-08 5:30 p.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 17:24:04, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
>> photos to Apple's servers.
> []
> If this is actually true, then surely, it's fairly ineffective, as child
> pornographers will just stop using Apple's servers?

So because a system isn't perfectly effective, it should be abandoned
entirely?

On 2021-08-08 5:27 p.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 11:04:34, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> 'Apple has found a way to detect and report CSAM offenders while
>> respecting these privacy constraints. When the number of user photos
>> that are in the CSAM database exceeds the threshold, the system is
>> able to detect and report this. Yet a user photo that is not in the
>> CSAM database remains invisible to the system, and users do not learn
>> the contents of the CSAM database.'
> []
> What's to stop an unscrupulous government - or agency - stuffing the
> CSAM database (or their own local equivalent) with, say, the
> Anarchists's Cookbook, Republican Party literature, Democratic party
> literature, LGBTQ+ material ... even pretty innocent stuff ...

What is stopping them now?

>
> EITHER so as to get people they don't like accused of child porn, and
> thus lose almost any public support (people don't support those even
> _accused_ of this one),
>
> OR, in the case of the less desirable governments, to use this
> _technology_ to find, say, gay people.
>
> (Don't tell me "those aren't pictures". The _technology_ doesn't care.)

The technology exists.

That Apple is bringing it out into the light doesn't change that.

In article <rwaK3EYdcHEhFwoo@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
> >photos to Apple's servers.
> []
> If this is actually true, then surely, it's fairly ineffective, as child
> pornographers will just stop using Apple's servers?

some obviously will, but criminals are fairly stupid.

just because something is not 100% effective doesn't mean don't bother.

In article <sepska$ef4$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> You keep asking for another solution, but I say why is Apple even involved
> in this?

because they're legally required to do so.

<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.htm
l>
U.S. law requires tech companies to flag cases of child sexual abuse
to the authorities. Apple has historically flagged fewer cases than
other companies. Last year, for instance, Apple reported 265 cases to
the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, while Facebook
reported 20.3 million, according to the center¹s statistics. That
enormous gap is due in part to Apple¹s decision not to scan for
such material, citing the privacy of its users.

as i said before, other companies have been doing it for many years.
apple is actually late to the party.

how do you propose apple comply with u.s. law?

In article <awGG33YthHEhFwOK@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
> >child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.
> []
> >Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching
> >process is performed for that image against the unreadable set of known
> []
> So _is_ it only done "if you use iCloud Photos", or "Before an image is
> stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process ..." - so is it
> "an on-device matching process", or "only if you use iCloud Photos"? I
> don't understand how it can be both "only"s.

icloud is encrypted, which means any hashing and database matching must
be done locally, *before* it's encrypted and uploaded to icloud.

photos not uploaded to icloud are not hashed or matched to anything.

if the photos are uploaded to other services, such as google, facebook,
twitter, etc., they will do their own checks.

On 2021-08-08 5:24 p.m., badgolferman wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <sepdm1$m85$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why must every single iPhone user be subjected to this intrusion?
>>>>
>>>> they're not. only those trafficking child porn need to be worried.
>>>>
>>>> for everyone else, there is no intrusion.
>>>>
>>>> do you have another solution for finding such people?
>>>>
>>>>> Let them
>>>>> do that to those who have been suspected of such things, and only AFTER a
>>>>> court order has been issued.
>>>>
>>>> which will happen only if someone is caught uploading child porn.
>>>>
>>>>> They are placing a file on your device and
>>>>> using precious resources (RAM, CPU, data) to perform a scanning task.
>>>>
>>>> apple places a lot of files on your device, as do many, many other
>>>> companies. that's how computers work.
>>>>
>>>> computing a hash uses a negligible amount of resources, nothing that
>>>> ever would be noticed.
>>>>
>>>> the time to upload the photo is both longer and more processor
>>>> intensive.
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> are all now pronounced guilty to the point of surveillance without any
>>>>> cause or proof.
>>>>
>>>> nope.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is hilarious! You will defend anything Apple does to the death! Is
>>> there anything they do which is unacceptable and worthy of your scorn?
>>
>> what you said is incorrect.
>>
>> incorrect statements get refuted.
>>
>> it's perfectly fine to be critical of the *actual* issues involved, but
>> nothing you said falls into that category.
>>
>> what is your solution to the problem?
>>
>>> Why is this action even necessary?
>>
>> because there are people in this world who create and distribute child
>> porn.
>>
>> in the days of film photography, photo labs would report anything
>> questionable, including photos of parent's own kids in the bathtub.
>>
>> digital photography eliminates the photo labs, which has made it
>> incredibly easy to create and distribute anything, both good and bad.
>>
>> it's also not new and not just apple.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA>
>> PhotoDNA is an image-identification technology used for detecting
>> child pornography and other illegal content which is reported to the
>> National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) as required
>> by law. It was developed by Microsoft Research and Hany Farid,
>> professor at Dartmouth College, beginning in 2009.
>> ...
>> It is used on Microsoft's own services including Bing and
>> OneDrive, as well as by Google's Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, Adobe
>> Systems, Reddit, Discord and the NCMEC, to whom Microsoft donated
>> the technology.
>>
>>> I am not defending child porn whatsoever
>>> and think people engaging in such activities should be castrated.
>>
>> how do you propose finding such people?
>>
>> how is your solution better than what apple, google, facebook, twitter,
>> etc. are doing?
>>
>> you do have a better solution, don't you?
>>
>> note that those companies are not all doing it in the same ways, so be
>> sure to highlight the good and bad parts of each system.
>>
>> to get you started, here's a very bad way:
>> several years ago, facebook addressed revenge porn by asking people to
>> send in their own nude photos which might be used against them by
>> others. that was a very stupid and horribly tone-deaf idea.
>>
>>> But I
>>> resent the very thought that Apple has decided to scan my pictures
>>> whatsoever. Who made them the investigator of any crime, especially a crime
>>> which hasn¹t even been committed?
>>
>> they're not scanning your photos.
>>
>> what they're doing is generating a cryptographic hash for photos
>> uploaded to icloud and checking to see if that hash (not the photo) is
>> in a database of known child porn.
>>
>> it's not possible for apple or anyone else to see the contents of the
>> photos.
>>
>> photos of your own kids in the bathtub will not be in such a database
>> and not flagged for anything.
>>
>> if a sufficient number of images match (more than just one, but the
>> number is undisclosed), then a manual review process occurs to see if
>> it really is child porn and if it is, it's referred to law enforcement.
>>
>> do you have a better solution? if so, let's hear it.
>>
>> apple, google, etc., would also be interested.
>>
>> keep in mind that some stores use facial recognition to flag known
>> shoplifters and other criminals they don't want on their property.
>> stores also track how many times you buy and return stuff and if you
>> abuse that, you're blocked from future transactions, possibly being
>> banned from the properties. cops use license plate recognition to find
>> stolen cars and other types of crimes. each time you use a credit card,
>> the transaction and what you bought is tracked by the bank and
>> advertisers they partner with.
>>
>> next time you park in a shopping center to buy shoes, you've been
>> checked against various databases, even though you are not guilty of
>> any crimes.
>>
>
>
> You keep asking for another solution, but I say why is Apple even involved
> in this? This is a law enforcement issue and the onus is on them to
> identify criminals, not a phone company. Is Apple now an arm of law
> enforcement or are they deciding on their own to find criminals?

Apple has created a system that doesn't violate the privacy of the
innocent, and yet will identify the guilty.

How is that a bad thing?

On 8/8/2021 5:35 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snip>

> So _is_ it only done "if you use iCloud Photos", or "Before an image is
> stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process ..." - so is it
> "an on-device matching process", or "only if you use iCloud Photos"? I
> don't understand how it can be both "only"s.

The way that I interpret it is that if you don't use iCloud photos then
either a) the phone doesn't bother to do the on-device matching process
or b) it does the process but it does nothing if it finds a match.

It would be pretty annoying to be a user of MacOS, iPadOS, and iOS and
to decide to disable iCloud photos to avoid this intrusion.

Of course you can choose to not upgrade to the latest versions of the
operating systems and avoid this.

On 2021-08-09, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You keep asking for another solution, but I say why is Apple even
> involved in this?

LOL... For the exact same reason every other major player in the market,
including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and
have been involved for a decade or longer: to prevent sexual
exploitation of children. Is that not a worthy goal in your opinion?

Why are you in such objection to the protection of innocent children
that you feel the need to fake outrage now that Apple is doing what
others have *already* been doing (but with *more* privacy protections)?
Rhetorical question: Don't bother answering - we already know the
answer. Your hypocrisy is on full display, and it's obvious why you are
singling Apple out after all this time.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-08, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nope. What Apple is placing inside of your house is a database of
>> hashes of known child sexual abuse images that your Apple devices will
>> use to ensure you aren't transferring known child porn to their
>> servers, and it will be done in a way that prevents any human being
>> from seeing your photos unless they match known child porn -and- your
>> account exceeds a threshold of multiple matching images being uploaded
>> to Apple servers.
>
> Which is of course of no use at detecting brand new child pornography,

So your position is they shouldn't bother?

Fuck off, dumbass.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-08, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/2021 4:05 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But again, I'm waiting to see actual details on the hash.
>
> You can be certain that you will not see those actual details.

The details are published. The fact that you and your trollboi friends
refuse to look at them don't change reality. All you are doing is
proving you can't be taken seriously by those who know better, loser.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article <seq0me$ulu$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The way that I interpret it is that if you don't use iCloud photos then
> either a) the phone doesn't bother to do the on-device matching process

correct, and there's nothing to interpret. apple is *very* clear about
how it works.

> or b) it does the process but it does nothing if it finds a match.

not correct.

> It would be pretty annoying to be a user of MacOS, iPadOS, and iOS and
> to decide to disable iCloud photos to avoid this intrusion.

it's not an intrusion.

> Of course you can choose to not upgrade to the latest versions of the
> operating systems and avoid this.

an even better option is not to traffic child porn.

On 2021-08-09, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 17:24:04, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>Bullshit, since you can easily opt out by refraining from transferring
>>photos to Apple's servers.
> []
> If this is actually true, then surely, it's fairly ineffective

It's certainly not ineffective at protecting Apple from liability by
identifying child pornography being uploaded to their servers, which is
what has driven Google, Microsoft, What'sApp, Twitter, Instragam, and
others to do this for a decade or lager before Apple decided to do it,
but with more privacy protections in place.

Fuck off, trollboi.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2021-08-09, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 at 11:15:45, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>On 2021-08-08 11:05 a.m., sms wrote:
> []
>>> But what Apple is planning, scanning content stored locally on your
>>>device, is more than a little creepy.
>>
>>Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
>>child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.
> []
>>Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching
>>process is performed for that image against the unreadable set of known
> []
> So _is_ it only done "if you use iCloud Photos", or "Before an image is
> stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process

Yes, and you can't show a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, Apple's public statements bind them legally. You have no such
legal responsibility, and you are here making claims not in evidence.
How convenient for you. And pretty lame.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 08-Aug-21 4:22 am, sms wrote:

>
> LOL, you can read the terms and conditions here:
> <https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS7.pdf>.
>

The odd thing about software licenses is that they are based on
copyright, which is about copying. Manfacturers push the idea that you
need a licence to use the software, but that's not what the law says.
If you're going to copy the software, you need a licence, and you'll
need to abide by its terms.

For things like MS Windows, copying it is pretty much unavoidable,
because the computer is incapable of using it in the form it is
supplied[**], so the distinction above is something of a splitting of hairs.

But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software already
installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is
required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
something that you already have the right to use.

As far as I'm aware, this has never been tested in court, probably
because it's never become a live issue.

[*] There are provisions in copyright law relating to necessary actions
to use an authorised copy, such as moving bits of it into RAM.

[**] It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in
litigation when Microsoft engaged in its dubious practice of automatic
upgrading of people to Windows 10. Was the victim subject to any licence
terms at all when the copying was done by Microsoft?

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> On 08-Aug-21 4:22 am, sms wrote:
>
>>
>> LOL, you can read the terms and conditions here:
>> <https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS7.pdf>.
>>
>
> The odd thing about software licenses is that they are based on copyright,
> which is about copying. Manfacturers push the idea that you need a licence
> to use the software, but that's not what the law says. If you're going to
> copy the software, you need a licence, and you'll need to abide by its
> terms.
>
> For things like MS Windows, copying it is pretty much unavoidable, because
> the computer is incapable of using it in the form it is supplied[**], so
> the distinction above is something of a splitting of hairs.
>
> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software already
> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an authorised
> copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is required, and
> any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the licence do not
> exist. Even if you find that you have to click on agreement to the
> licence, that would be legally ineffective, because Apple cannot force you
> to agree to terms as a condition of using something that you already have
> the right to use.
>
> As far as I'm aware, this has never been tested in court, probably because
> it's never become a live issue.
>
> [*] There are provisions in copyright law relating to necessary actions to
> use an authorised copy, such as moving bits of it into RAM.
>
> [**] It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in
> litigation when Microsoft engaged in its dubious practice of automatic
> upgrading of people to Windows 10.

There was never any automatic upgrading of people to Windows 10.

> Was the victim subject to any licence terms at all when the copying was
> done by Microsoft?

In article <inbgraFb2oqU1@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software already
> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
> authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is
> required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
> licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
> agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
> Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
> something that you already have the right to use.

that is totally false. you might want to talk to an intellectual
property lawyer for how things really work.

> As far as I'm aware, this has never been tested in court, probably
> because it's never become a live issue.

no need to test it, since it's flat out wrong.

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote
>>On 2021-08-08 11:05 a.m., sms wrote:
> []
>>> But what Apple is planning, scanning content stored locally on your
>>>device, is more than a little creepy.
>>
>>Comparing a hash of images on your device to hashes of known images of
>>child pornography if and only if you use iCloud Photos.
> []
>>Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching
>>process is performed for that image against the unreadable set of known
> []
> So _is_ it only done "if you use iCloud Photos", or "Before an image is
> stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process ..." - so is it
> "an on-device matching process", or "only if you use iCloud Photos"?

The on device matching process is only used if you use icloud photos.

> I don't understand how it can be both "only"s.

Very simple really.

On 09-Aug-21 12:30 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <inbgraFb2oqU1@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software already
>> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
>> authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is
>> required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
>> licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
>> agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
>> Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
>> something that you already have the right to use.
>
> that is totally false. you might want to talk to an intellectual
> property lawyer for how things really work.

Alternatively, instead of just claiming I'm wrong, you could point to
specifics.

Sylvia.

In article <inbj6sFbgnbU1@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> >> But when you buy an iPhone, it comes with a copy of the software already
> >> installed, and the copy was authorised by Apple. So you own an
> >> authorised copy. There is no need to copy anything[*]. So no licence is
> >> required, and any rights that Apple claims to have by virtue of the
> >> licence do not exist. Even if you find that you have to click on
> >> agreement to the licence, that would be legally ineffective, because
> >> Apple cannot force you to agree to terms as a condition of using
> >> something that you already have the right to use.
> >
> > that is totally false. you might want to talk to an intellectual
> > property lawyer for how things really work.
>
> Alternatively, instead of just claiming I'm wrong, you could point to
> specifics.

what you wrote makes no sense. preinstalled software is licensed and
any time the user upgrades it, a new version is copied to the device,
rending the entire claim moot. it's simply wrong.

talk to a lawyer for specifics about software licensing (which i've
done) and stop getting legal advice from random web sites.

On 2021-08-09, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> So your position is they shouldn't bother?

Yes. Certainly in the U.S. that kind of fishing expedition flies
in the face of 4th Amendment. It is not Apple's job to police their
users. If police have reason to believe an individual has such material
it is their job to obtain a search warrant.

> Fuck off, dumbass.

You fuck off, shithead.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------