Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? Date: 14 Aug 2016 23:32:16 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <9c07qbt4knisqlcpmiaeqiv48nmbbshbqv@4ax.com> <060820161054163843%nospam@nospam.invalid> <060820161537263166%nospam@nospam.invalid> <090820161421341198%nospam@nospam.invalid> <140820161409544299%nospam@nospam.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net aaXuvuMi4Rhm5kuaJeCeVwjFB0t+95LWQtG9XsAVz5UUsDVspH Cancel-Lock: sha1:7V6wPzFlFFJTZ3sMnXyq/nC3yOQ= Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com misc.phone.mobile.iphone:90357 comp.mobile.android:33363 On 2016-08-14, Aardvarks wrote: > On 14 Aug 2016 18:18:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Right, there are *many* different ways to identify someone over a >> network connection that have absolutely *nothing* to do with an >> advertising ID. > > This is one of the rare times where you have said something that is > true. Projection - you routinely lie and insult people in the Apple news groups. >> He seems to be fixated on the advertising ID because there is a nifty >> GUI widget that lets you hide it in Android. > > Have you never read a single thread in this newsgroup? > > One by one, I identify, learn about, and then resolve each possible > exploit that is possible to resolve. Actually, what you do is ignorantly *claim* you have learned about things while simultaneously proving by your own words you haven't learned a thing; then when people who know better confront you about that, you turn around and insult them and lie about them. You're a pitiful transparent troll, and the only person you are fooling is yourself, which seems appropriate. > It just so happens that the Android ApID is trivial to resolve You have proven no such thing; all you have proven is you have hidden it from the user interface, without offering a shred of evidence that the ID is absent from the device, nor any evidence that the ID is no longer transmitted over the network. Such naive assumptions only make you look like a fool. >> And he seems to naively believe hiding it magically equates to >> *complete* removal from the device - without even bothering to check >> to see if that is true. > > It's gone. You haven't backed that assertion up with a single shred of proof. Until such time your assertion is assumed to be neither true or false, but just plain bullshit. > The onus is on you, not me, to prove something that doesn't exist, to > exist. Nope. You're apparently not very familiar with sound logic. Since *you* made the claim the ID is gone, and it is *your* job to prove that is the case. Until then, I call bullshit. >> He also hasn't bothered to check to see if the ID is being >> transmitted over the network. > > It's not even *generated*. You haven't proven that. > It's gone. Nor have you proven that. >> Chances are the ID is still on the device and is still being >> transmitted, unbeknownst to him. > > It's impossible. Nonsense. The ID can easily be stored somewhere on the device, and the ID can easily be transmitted over the network from the device. -- 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