On 2021-08-09, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Fuck off, trollboi.

You fuck off, asshat.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2021-08-08 9:30 p.m., Roger Blake wrote:
> 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.

Actually, no. Not at all.

The 4th Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT actions.

On 09-Aug-21 1:11 pm, nospam wrote:
> 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.
>

As regards upgrades, there are at least two kinds - upgrades that the
user choose, and upgrades that are forced on the user. In the former
case, the user clearly has the option of not upgrading. In the latter,
the new software is installed by the manufacturer, and is an authorised
copy.

The rest of your comment is unhelpful - it amounts to your asserting
that your understanding is preferable to mine, which you may believe,
but I don't.

Sylvia.

Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
> Apple scanning for images on MY storage system: NOT OK.
>

Imagine for one instant believing that this will be used solely to nab
pedophiles. Pedophiles are almost a protected class by this point.

This is about cyber dissidents.

"Roger Blake" <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote

| > Fuck off, dumbass.
| | You fuck off, shithead.
|

...And we'll be right back with our coverage of Congressional
debate, right after this station identification... Thank you for
watching CSPAN...

"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.
|

Nospam never addresses specifics. He tries to bluster his way
through, getting his thrills from the argument itself. If you address
a point he seems to be making he'll just switch the context of
discussion. In the end, you have only yourself to blame for
talking to him in the first place. :)

I find your description of licensing very clear and sensible.
Unfortunately, I think I also remember a "clickwrap" license
being tested once in court and being accepted as legal. Even
more bizarre are the unilateral licenses, such as on websites:

"By using this site you agree we can spy on you." That
message is contained in the HTML file that they just gave
to you without any demands or negotiations. And all you had
to do was to send a GET request to their server. No licensing
agreement was made.

We can argue these points all day and most people don't
understand the specifics. It seems that what's really needed
is an update of laws to clarify that:

* Property rights apply to digital property.

* Copyright law gives you ownership of one copy when you
buy it (as established in the Macy's used book case of 1909)
to do with as you wish, so long as you don't distribute copies.

* Contracts are only valid when mutually agreed.

* Mickey mouse contract terms are punishable by law.

There are numerous examples to show why that last
element is necessary. For example, Microsoft's claim that you
don't own the copy of Windows on your computer and that
it's actually licensed to the non-sentient, plastic entity known
as "motherboard".

There was a case with Powerquest, who
at one time had the only usable disk management software.
Their software, and the smallest hard disks, were both about
$60 at the time. Further, PQ had managed to split the functionality
between several programs that were each about $60. And the
clickthrough license for each program said it was licensed for
use on only one hard disk! So, $60 for the disk and $120 to
partition it and make an OS backup.

I remember that at one time the PC magazines would
periodically have humor articles detailing such licenses. But
they're often enforced passively, so they're no joke. For example,
with product activation Microsoft can passively block your legal
use of the product you paid for.

On 8/8/2021 7:05 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

On iPhones, Macs, and Windows machines, the software is installed, but
not activated. That is a key distinction.

There is no need to copy or activate anything, either on a new iPhone or
a new computer shipped with MacOS (or Windows), the hardware could be
used for other purposes without using the operating system license that
is part of the purchase.

Practically speaking, Linux users may never activate Windows on a
computer that comes with Windoows, especially if they are using the box
for a server or for Bitcoin mining; they will immediately install Linux
on a new machine without ever installing Windows.

On an iPhone, very few people would choose to run an alternate OS. It
may not even be possible without first agreeing to the iOS T&C and
activating iOS. Yes, a handful of iPhone owners have Jailbroken and
installed Android, but they had to first activate iOS.

You can't buy an iOS device, decide that you won't agree to the T&C, and
return the device for a refund, at least not to most retailers. With
software that you buy for a device, it's different, there is often an
option to get a refund on uninstalled software.

It's all moot. You would not sell your copy of iOS whether you owned it
or not. Doing so would require that you uninstall it from your device
and then install it on a different device, which a) probably isn't
possible, and b) wouldn't ever be necessary since every new iOS device
already comes with iOS.

For Windows, it's different. Some resellers of Microsoft operating
systems and applications have deactivated the software licenses on old
machines and resold the licenses. Microsoft had some requirement that
the license be sold with hardware so they would ship an old broken disk
drive with the license.

In article <20210809002705@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> 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 doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
facebook, etc. are not government actors.

however, they are required by law to report child porn and other
evidence of crime.

In article <serabr$6u1$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Practically speaking, Linux users may never activate Windows on a
> computer that comes with Windoows, especially if they are using the box
> for a server or for Bitcoin mining; they will immediately install Linux
> on a new machine without ever installing Windows.

except they still pay for the windows license.

> On an iPhone, very few people would choose to run an alternate OS. It
> may not even be possible without first agreeing to the iOS T&C and
> activating iOS.

none will, since that is not possible.

> Yes, a handful of iPhone owners have Jailbroken and
> installed Android, but they had to first activate iOS.

not in the past 14 years, they haven't.

the *only* iphones that can do that are the original iphone and iphone
3g, released in 2007 & 2008, plus the version of android that 'works'
is 2.2, which is far too old to do much of anything. it also didn't
work well, with a lot of hardware support lacking.

> You can't buy an iOS device, decide that you won't agree to the T&C, and
> return the device for a refund, at least not to most retailers.

more bullshit.

apple will accept returns of any product for any reason within 14 days.

other retailers will have different policies.

i remember some cellphone carriers offering 30 day trials, and if you
return the phone for a refund, your only cost was the service itself,
not the phone.

> With
> software that you buy for a device, it's different, there is often an
> option to get a refund on uninstalled software.

only if it's unopened, because they know people will copy the software
and use it anyway.

On 8/8/2021 1:09 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> 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?
>
> Why is this action even necessary? I am not defending child porn whatsoever
> and think people engaging in such activities should be castrated. 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 hasn’t even been committed?

My Usenet filter log is overflowing. I hope that nospam, Jolly Roger,
Alan Baker, Jorge Lorenz, Lewis, and Your Name are getting overtime pay
for their admirable dedication in spreading misinformation on this
whole mess.

Look at Johnson and Johnson's response to the Tylenol tampering. Apple
should form a strategy team to address the damage that's been done to
the company's reputation and restore the trust of the public
<https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%20Johnson.htm>.

In article <serhvq$30g$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> My Usenet filter log is overflowing. I hope that nospam, Jolly Roger,
> Alan Baker, Jorge Lorenz, Lewis, and Your Name are getting overtime pay
> for their admirable dedication in spreading misinformation on this
> whole mess.

they're correcting disinformation, nearly all of which is from you,
*with* cites, which you falsely claim are never provided.

> Look at Johnson and Johnson's response to the Tylenol tampering. Apple
> should form a strategy team to address the damage that's been done to
> the company's reputation and restore the trust of the public

that's yet another example of your disinformation and attempt to troll.

In message <090820211009266727%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20210809002705@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> 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 doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
> facebook, etc. are not government actors.

It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
doing when you upload them top a server.

> however, they are required by law to report child porn and other
> evidence of crime.

--
Imagine all the people Sharing all the world

"Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

| > it doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
| > facebook, etc. are not government actors.
| | It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
| doing when you upload them top a server.
|

?? Remote storage is not publishing.

In article <slrnsh2jl9.1u08.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> 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 doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
> > facebook, etc. are not government actors.
>
> It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
> doing when you upload them top a server.

that too.

the cloud is often described as 'someone else's computer', which being
owned by someone else, they get to decide how it's used.

cloud providers are legally obligated to *not* host illegal material,
such as child porn, but also other types as well.

In article <serk4v$e0t$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > it doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
> | > facebook, etc. are not government actors.
> |
> | It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
> | doing when you upload them top a server.
> |
>
> ?? Remote storage is not publishing.

legally it is.

On 2021-08-09, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

Nope. The photos being scanned are being uploaded to the company's
servers, and it is not only their right but also their *responsibility*
to make sure what is being uploaded is not child sexual abuse imagery.

--
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, Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>
>| > it doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
>| > facebook, etc. are not government actors.
>|
>| It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
>| doing when you upload them top a server.
>
> ?? Remote storage is not publishing.

It absolutely is. And the company that owns the servers has a
responsibility to detect and report child porn being published to their
servers to the appropriate authorities.

--
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, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsh2jl9.1u08.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
><g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> 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 doesn't. the 4th amendment applies to the government. apple, google,
>>> facebook, etc. are not government actors.
>>
>> It also doe not apply to PUBLISHING those photos, which is what you are
>> doing when you upload them top a server.
>
> that too.
>
> the cloud is often described as 'someone else's computer', which being
> owned by someone else, they get to decide how it's used.
>
> cloud providers are legally obligated to *not* host illegal material,
> such as child porn, but also other types as well.

Yep. But the "Apple: BAD!1!! Feelings over facts!!1!" crowd isn't
interested in a factual discussion, and facts like these are irrelevant
to their feely feels about it.

--
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 7 Aug 2021 at 4:30:12 PM, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> it's likely that Apple will back down from device scanning,
> there's just been too much push-back from privacy advocates, LGBTQ+
> organizations, and religious freedom groups.

If I was gay I'd be scared shitless now that Apple fucked everyone.
--
Cheers, Rob

On 8 Aug 2021 at 6:01:21 PM, "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> You forget that Gmail also scans your email to detect receipts and group
> them together; they also scan for appointments and adds them to your
> calendar. Things that some people consider nice features and other
> people consider unbearable intrusion. I think it can be disabled.

Where is that mail scanning you speak of being performed?
--
Cheers, Rob

On 2021/08/09 2:59 am, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 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.

Thid statement above shows these weird people still don't understand it's
only Apple who is scanning your personal private data on your own device.

Not Google. Not Microsoft. Not Whatsapp. Not Twitter. Not Instagram.
Just Apple.
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 2021/08/08 12:15 pm, Alan Baker 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.

These weird people don't seem to be able to understand Apple plans to scan
iMessages for anything it wants to consider objectionable if you let it.

There's no has involved.
No child porn involved.
No iCloud involved.

These weird people are blind to the obvious.
Why are they so blind to what is already documented?
--
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

In article <seru64$dok$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Robertson
<spam@flippers.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Thid statement above shows these weird people still don't understand it's
> only Apple who is scanning your personal private data on your own device.

only for photos uploaded to icloud.

> Not Google. Not Microsoft. Not Whatsapp. Not Twitter. Not Instagram.
> Just Apple.

yes to all of those and many more, if you upload it to their servers.

In article <serubj$e40$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Robertson
<spam@flippers.com> wrote:

> These weird people don't seem to be able to understand Apple plans to scan
> iMessages for anything it wants to consider objectionable if you let it.

nope. the scanning is done per device. apple is not part of it (nor can
they be), and where 'if you let it' is parents opting in for their
kids, and only the parents are notified. not apple.

> Why am I so blind to what is already documented?

ftfy, arlen

On 8/9/2021 12:03 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/08/09 2:59 am, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thid statement above shows these weird people still don't understand it's
> only Apple who is scanning your personal private data on your own device.

I think that they understand it just fine, they're just looking for ways
to rationalize the on-device scanning.