Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33030 > unrolled thread

Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?

Started by	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
First post	2016-08-02 19:37 +0000
Last post	2016-08-08 05:49 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 127 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

#33095

From	tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
Date	2016-08-04 04:00 -0400
Message-ID	<1juwo76j3p1aj.17hs6f2swli6r.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to	#33077

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 19:13:43 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote:

> Even ... tlvp didn't feel the need to say that what 
> you have on Apple iOS is the same as ...

That's 'cuz I have no "need to say" things about what I know nothing about.
In that regard I'm trying to set a good example; but it's not working :-{ .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33114

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-04 21:03 +0000
Message-ID	<no0ajk$u2m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#33077

Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:04:13 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
> 
>> You didn't prove that the ID is actually wiped out.
> 
> I am a scientist.

You're many things, but sorry you're no scientist. 

> 1. Like any true scientist, I provide my hypothesis that iOs is less 
> private than Android when it comes to being able to easily *eliminate* the 
> advertising ID. And, like any true scientist, I provided numerous 
> references which backed up my claims and which supported the experiment 
> that I devised and published out in the open.
> 
> 2. Like any true scientist, I provided the exact steps to my *experiment*, 
> which anyone on the planet can reproduce with any similar Android phone 
> (mine is an S3 on Android 4.3).
> 
> 3. And, like a true scientist, I provided the results and conclusion that 
> the advertising ID was trivially easily completely eliminated from the 
> Android system. Like any true scientist, I know *more* needs to be 
> explored, such as the question of whether the Advertising ID is hidden 
> somehow, and that similar tests need to be performed to see if it is as 
> easy to eliminate the advertising ID on iOS as it was on Android.

None of which tests your original hypothesis. Pointless exercise.

> This is what scientists do.

No. The traditional scientific method is you make an observation, develop a
hypothesis based on the observation, design an experiment ideally to
disprove your hypothesis, and then assess objectively whether the
experiment had achieved your aim.

Nowadays you can also develop hypothesis free experiments, generally where
your large amounts of data in an attempt to develop a hypothesis.

> This is fact.

Good scientist are rarely categorical. That's a fact ;)

> Now, what do *you* provide?
> 
> Words?
> Tht's it?
> Just words?
> 
> You are not a scientist.
> 
> You, and nospam and Savageduck and tlvp, etc., are merely iOS apologists 
> who don't like the fact that it's trivially easy to completely eliminate 
> the advertising ID on Android, while it's probably almost impossible to do 
> the same privacy tweak on iOS.
> 
>> And as for iOS: I have an easily reachable menu in the Settings app, 
>> where I can (and have ;-) ) denied Ad-tracking, and where I can even 
>> reset the ADID (by generating a new one).
> 
> Heh heh ... you really felt the need to say that?
> Really?
> 
> Even nospam and Savageduck and tlvp didn't feel the need to say that what 
> you have on Apple iOS is the same as what every Android user already has 
> with respect to *resetting* the advertising ID and telling advertisers not 
> to use it.
> 
> You probably don't even *understand* what I just wrote - but I'm sure 
> nospam (who, despite his constant baseless lies, actually *does* understand 
> everything that I write).
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33060

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-03 10:57 +0200
Message-ID	<nnsbmd$fes$1@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33053

Am 03.08.2016 um 08:34 schrieb Aardvarks:

> b. In addition, deleting and disabling the apps above, wiped out the
> "Google Settings" app, so now there is zero mention of any ApID anywhere in
> the Android device (that I can find).
>
> One hypothesis for the Android aficionados:
> - Have I entirely wiped out the AdID from my non-rooted device?
> If not - where is it?

You seem to be unaware of the difference between data shown on a screen 
and data stored internally in a computer system. The only thing you've 
proven above is that you don't see this ID anymore in any (user 
accessible) screen.

But you can't possibly know (at this time, after performing the steps 
you outlined) whether it's still stored somewhere in the system, nor 
whether it's still accessible by apps (or Android itself) whenever they 
choose to do so.

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33081

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-03 19:32 +0000
Message-ID	<nntgrr$rv6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33060

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:57:46 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You seem to be unaware of the difference between data shown on a screen 
> and data stored internally in a computer system. The only thing you've 
> proven above is that you don't see this ID anymore in any (user 
> accessible) screen.
> 
> But you can't possibly know (at this time, after performing the steps 
> you outlined) whether it's still stored somewhere in the system, nor 
> whether it's still accessible by apps (or Android itself) whenever they 
> choose to do so.

I am a scientist.

1. I proposed my hypothesis & my references backing it up.
2. I showed the exact steps of my experiment for anyone to reproduce.
3. I showed the results for anyone to prove wrong.

And what do you provide?

You *saying* there is a super-secret hidden secret advertising ID that is
secretly generated outside the well-known mechanisms that the references
prove exist, merely means that you're stretching for a conspiracy theory to
support your erroneous beliefs.

What are your references?
Where is your experiment?
Where is your proof?

You may as well tell me the earth is flat.

I often wonder why you Apple people resort to such lies, but I finally
figured why you make up *everything* in your self-imposed contrived world
that Apple Marketing so safely (says they have) built for you:
a. You're scared witless (hoping that Apple Marketing will protect you)
b. You only care about style (which Apple Marketing surely provides)
c. You accept single-button-mouse solutions (from Apple Marketing)

Fact:
- It's trivially easy to completely eliminate the Advertising ID from an
unrooted Android device (my test was on an S3 with Android 4.3).

Hypothesis:
- It's impossible to do the same privacy tweak on unrooted iOS.

I'm a scientist. I'm not afraid of facts.
Prove me wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33082

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-08-03 15:33 -0400
Message-ID	<030820161533486243%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#33081

In article <nntgrr$rv6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> Where is your proof?

apple and android developer documentation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33083

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-03 19:42 +0000
Message-ID	<nnthfm$sqe$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33082

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:33:48 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Where is your proof?
> 
> apple and android developer documentation.

Remember: I already referenced the exact android developer documentation
which supported the experiment that I devised based on reading those
documents (which told me exactly which services generated the AdID!).

As always, you reference absolutely nothing.
This used to bother me.

Until I realized...
a. You are afraid of facts
b. You want Apple Marketing to save you from these facts
c. They can't - because facts are facts (you thrive on Marketing lies).

Fact:
- It's trivially easy to completely eliminate the Advertising ID from an
unrooted Android device (my test was on an S3 with Android 4.3).

Hypothesis:
- It's impossible to do the same privacy tweak on unrooted iOS.

I'm a scientist. 
I'm not afraid of facts.

Prove me wrong in that apple and android development document you so
nebulously cite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33084

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-08-03 16:00 -0400
Message-ID	<030820161600392889%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#33083

In article <nnthfm$sqe$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> >> Where is your proof?
> > 
> > apple and android developer documentation.
> 
> Remember: I already referenced the exact android developer documentation
> which supported the experiment that I devised based on reading those
> documents (which told me exactly which services generated the AdID!).

no you didn't.

you have *no* idea what how the advertising id is used or how someone
can be tracked *without* it.

you're fixated on removing something that doesn't actually make much of
a difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33092

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-04 09:15 +0200
Message-ID	<nnuq33$2a2$1@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33081

Am 03.08.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:57:46 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> You seem to be unaware of the difference between data shown on a screen
>> and data stored internally in a computer system. The only thing you've
>> proven above is that you don't see this ID anymore in any (user
>> accessible) screen.
>>
>> But you can't possibly know (at this time, after performing the steps
>> you outlined) whether it's still stored somewhere in the system, nor
>> whether it's still accessible by apps (or Android itself) whenever they
>> choose to do so.
>
> I am a scientist.

Then behave like one! And not like a kid, stomping your feet.

> 1. I proposed my hypothesis & my references backing it up.
> 2. I showed the exact steps of my experiment for anyone to reproduce.
> 3. I showed the results for anyone to prove wrong.
>
> And what do you provide?

Like a good scientist I claimed (and gave reason for that claim) that 
your test is not suitable for basing your conclusion. *I* don't have to 
provide anything more, it's *you* who has to prove that your claim is 
still holding up, despite my well-founded criticism. If you knew 
anything about the scientific process, you would know that that's the 
way things work in the scientific community.

> You *saying* there is a super-secret hidden secret advertising ID that is
> secretly generated outside the well-known mechanisms that the references
> prove exist, merely means that you're stretching for a conspiracy theory to
> support your erroneous beliefs.

Oh, more insults. Is that all you have? Not even one of your 
'well-founded' test results, not even one of your 'explain-all' screen 
shots? No? Poor you.

Let me make my point clear one more time: In your test you deleted the 
Google Play app. And I accept (without any problem) that you did so 
successfully.

However, that does not mean at all that any background services for the 
Google Play Services are gone just as well. Nor does that mean that any 
data they stored is actually gone from the system. Just one example how 
that could work: The Google Play Services may store the AdID somewhere 
in a general Android storage area (seeing how easy it is in Android for 
one process to get access to the data of another process, that's easily 
possible, even without pulling the card of 'Google can do things with 
system parts that apps wouldn't be allowed').

But you're claiming that by deleting the app all the data from the 
background service are gone just as well.

> What are your references?

I don't need any, I just need to raise reasonable arguments that *you* 
have to show as false or as not applicable. Reminder: Insults are not an 
accepted way of proving your point right.

> Where is your experiment?

I don't need one. It's your experiment, you have to prove that it is a 
valid basis for your conclusion.

> Where is your proof?

I don't need any proof. I only need to raise reasonable doubt. And I 
did. It's your task to dispel them.

> You may as well tell me the earth is flat.

Oh, come on. That's even below your standards...

> I often wonder why you Apple people resort to such lies, but I finally
> figured why you make up *everything* in your self-imposed contrived world
> that Apple Marketing so safely (says they have) built for you:
> a. You're scared witless (hoping that Apple Marketing will protect you)
> b. You only care about style (which Apple Marketing surely provides)
> c. You accept single-button-mouse solutions (from Apple Marketing)

And more insults...

> Fact:
> - It's trivially easy to completely eliminate the Advertising ID from an
> unrooted Android device (my test was on an S3 with Android 4.3).

Which is yet to be shown. By you, by the way, not by me.

> Hypothesis:
> - It's impossible to do the same privacy tweak on unrooted iOS.
>
> I'm a scientist. I'm not afraid of facts.
> Prove me wrong.

I showed that your conclusion cannot be based on your experiment. That's 
all there is to do for my role in this discussion. Dispel that or bring 
up a test that really proves your conclusion. *That's* the way science 
works.

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33100

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-04 10:54 +0000
Message-ID	<nnv6tp$rdi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33092

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:15:44 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Like a good scientist I claimed (and gave reason for that claim) that 
> your test is not suitable for basing your conclusion. *I* don't have to 
> provide anything

Michael,
Again, I sure hope you don't vote.

I'm sure *you* believe that a World War II Bomber is *still* on the Moon,
simply because it's hard to prove (to you) that it's *not* on the moon.

Given your acutely obvious scientific acumen, this is right down the
"scientific" line of thought both you and nospam *consistently* display.

- World War II Bomber now *missing* from the moon!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/gvjt5fw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33105

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-04 13:06 +0200
Message-ID	<nnv7k7$dp8$2@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33100

Am 04.08.2016 um 12:54 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:15:44 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Like a good scientist I claimed (and gave reason for that claim) that
>> your test is not suitable for basing your conclusion. *I* don't have to
>> provide anything
>
> Michael,
> Again, I sure hope you don't vote.
>
> I'm sure *you* believe that a World War II Bomber is *still* on the Moon,
> simply because it's hard to prove (to you) that it's *not* on the moon.
>
> Given your acutely obvious scientific acumen, this is right down the
> "scientific" line of thought both you and nospam *consistently* display.
>
> - World War II Bomber now *missing* from the moon!
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/gvjt5fw
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

That's exactly the way you think, not me.

Get lost,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33062

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-03 11:07 +0200
Message-ID	<nnsc8q$ft5$2@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33030

Am 02.08.2016 um 21:37 schrieb Aardvarks:

> (The iOS guys are like your basic used-car salespeople - they almost never
> tell the truth and they can only spout what the Marketing guys tell them to
> say - so we're not going to get any provable level of detail from them).
>
> Even though we won't likely get anything from iOS guys that they didn't
> read off of a glossy marketing brochure, I'll cc them, just in case they do
> know something of what they constantly talk about.
>
<...>
 >
> The Apple guys get all their ideas from the admittedly clever Marketing
> machine (which knows how to play to their intense fear) so I doubt they'll
> be providing any real details to their accusations - yet they still
> constantly accuse the Android users of being spied upon by Google simply
> for using Android.

Do you really think it to be a good start of a discussion insulting one 
of the groups you hope to be participating? Me not...

> I just want to find out the correct answer to the question.

No you don't, you want your view of the world confirmed. Otherwise you 
wouldn't have felt the need to insult the group that is most likely to 
be of a different opinion.

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33063

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-08-03 06:38 -0400
Message-ID	<030820160638228789%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#33062

In article <nnsc8q$ft5$2@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
wrote:

> > I just want to find out the correct answer to the question.
> 
> No you don't, you want your view of the world confirmed. Otherwise you 
> wouldn't have felt the need to insult the group that is most likely to 
> be of a different opinion.

exactly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33113

From	Meanie <meanie.brat@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-04 16:40 -0400
Message-ID	<no097i$olu$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#33062

On 8/3/2016 5:07 AM, Michael Eyd wrote:
> Am 02.08.2016 um 21:37 schrieb Aardvarks:
>
>> (The iOS guys are like your basic used-car salespeople - they almost
>> never
>> tell the truth and they can only spout what the Marketing guys tell
>> them to
>> say - so we're not going to get any provable level of detail from them).
>>
>> Even though we won't likely get anything from iOS guys that they didn't
>> read off of a glossy marketing brochure, I'll cc them, just in case
>> they do
>> know something of what they constantly talk about.
>>
> <...>
>>
>> The Apple guys get all their ideas from the admittedly clever Marketing
>> machine (which knows how to play to their intense fear) so I doubt
>> they'll
>> be providing any real details to their accusations - yet they still
>> constantly accuse the Android users of being spied upon by Google simply
>> for using Android.
>
> Do you really think it to be a good start of a discussion insulting one
> of the groups you hope to be participating? Me not...
>
>> I just want to find out the correct answer to the question.
>
> No you don't, you want your view of the world confirmed. Otherwise you
> wouldn't have felt the need to insult the group that is most likely to
> be of a different opinion.
>
> Michael

So many complaints about this person and yet so many replies.

People sure don't know how to ignore but sure know how to whine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33076

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-03 19:03 +0000
Message-ID	<nntf60$pgv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33030

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:47:23 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Facts only.
> 
> they've been provided. 

Yes. I provided the only facts in this thread. 
And I present the facts to all, for scientific review.

You, on the other hand, *never* present facts.

You simply *allude* to unknown cryptic riddles like a priest waving his 
hand over the heavens presuming an all-powerful Apple God looking over your 
privacy.

Never *once* will you present a *single* fact in this thread.
I know you all too well.

> you aren't interested.

You go to *zero* effort to shoot down my facts which took me more time to 
document for the team than to run the tests.

You simply say *words*.
You will *never* present a *single* fact in this entire thread.

I know you all too well.
You can't and don't have *any* facts.

You're a consummate iOS apologist.

You *know* you can't get rid of the advertising ID on iOS.
You *know* it's trivial to completely eliminate the advertising ID on 
Android.

So you hide that *fact* by your Apple-God riddles.

> wrong.
You *know* you can't get rid of the advertising ID on iOS.
You *know* it's trivial to completely eliminate the advertising ID on 
Android.

Yet, you only have *words* to fight the *fact* I proved that the 
Advertising ID is eliminated.

In fact, I'm not *afraid* of my facts like you are.
Instead of alluding to an all-powerful Apple-God like you do, I simply 
point out what I did like any scientist would.

Everything I did is 100% reproducible by *any* Android owner with a similar 
version of the operating system (mine is 4.3).

The stupids like Michael Eyd allude to an all-powerful Apple-God in that he 
says that the Apple ID isn't gone - it's just hidden - which - if it's true 
- I'm not afraid of.

But I presented *facts* showing it was eliminated.
I provided *references* showing it can't be created.

Yet you (and the other stupid, Michael Eyd), only present words.
That's what's so odd about you iOS apologists.

You have absolutely zero facts to add to *any* technical discussion on 
privacy.

All you can do is replay tired old Apple Marketing mantra.

You know why?
Because you *know* my facts are right.

If they weren't correct - someone would refute them simply by reproducing 
my test and finding me to be wrong.

You know why that won't happen?
Because I'm right.

Facts are facts.
Science is science.

All you spout is Apple Marketing.
Never a single fact will you provide in this entire thread.

For example, how would *you* eliminate the Apple ID?
Can you eliminate it on iOS as easily as I did on Android?

What's that?
You can't?

I thought so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33080

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-08-03 15:19 -0400
Message-ID	<030820161519415459%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#33076

In article <nntf60$pgv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

> 
> > wrong.
> You *know* you can't get rid of the advertising ID on iOS.
> You *know* it's trivial to completely eliminate the advertising ID on 
> Android.

statements like those shows just how little you know about how a user
can be tracked, *without* an advertising id.

you are in *well* over your head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33103

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-04 10:56 +0000
Message-ID	<nnv70v$rn3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33080

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:19:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

> statements like those shows just how little you know about how a user
> can be tracked, *without* an advertising id.

Given your acute scientific acumen shown in your statements negating facts,
you'll probably *believe* this story about the Russians finding "airplane"
parts on the moon.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/583080/Plane-shaped-UFO-found-on-Moon-in-50-year-old-Soviet-lunar-mission-pictures

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33093

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-04 09:37 +0200
Message-ID	<nnurbn$39i$1@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33076

Am 03.08.2016 um 21:03 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:47:23 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> you aren't interested.
>
> You go to *zero* effort to shoot down my facts which took me more time to
> document for the team than to run the tests.

Zero effort? Which only shows how easy it is to shoot them down. :-)

> You simply say *words*.

Hm, from a pure semantical point of view: What do you say? Bread, 
stones, ...? Frankly, in all my life I've never seen anybody saying 
anything other than words... ;-)

> You will *never* present a *single* fact in this entire thread.
>
> I know you all too well.
> You can't and don't have *any* facts.
>
> You're a consummate iOS apologist.

Insults...

> You *know* you can't get rid of the advertising ID on iOS.

Shifting subjects, again. Please stay on-topic, i.e. since this topic 
was chosen by *you*, not by us.

> You *know* it's trivial to completely eliminate the advertising ID on
> Android.
>
> So you hide that *fact* by your Apple-God riddles.
>
>> wrong.
> You *know* you can't get rid of the advertising ID on iOS.
> You *know* it's trivial to completely eliminate the advertising ID on
> Android.

Repetition doesn't make it more true... And please stay on-topic.

> Yet, you only have *words* to fight the *fact* I proved that the
> Advertising ID is eliminated.

You didn't prove that. The only thing you've proven is that you got rid 
of the Google Play Services *app*. And it should make you wonder how 
easy it is with only words to debunk your claim. Nothing more needed, 
just words.

> In fact, I'm not *afraid* of my facts like you are.
> Instead of alluding to an all-powerful Apple-God like you do, I simply
> point out what I did like any scientist would.
>
> Everything I did is 100% reproducible by *any* Android owner with a similar
> version of the operating system (mine is 4.3).
>
> The stupids like Michael Eyd allude to an all-powerful Apple-God in that he
> says that the Apple ID isn't gone - it's just hidden - which - if it's true
> - I'm not afraid of.

a) More insults, again.
b) I never claimed anything about any Apple ID on any Android device. 
You're shifting subjects again. Or should that just be a type, coming 
from your Apple hatred? Probably...

> But I presented *facts* showing it was eliminated.

You didn't.

> I provided *references* showing it can't be created.

Where? I didn't see any...

> Yet you (and the other stupid, Michael Eyd), only present words.

More insults.

> That's what's so odd about you iOS apologists.

And even more.

> You have absolutely zero facts to add to *any* technical discussion on
> privacy.
>
> All you can do is replay tired old Apple Marketing mantra.

I'm not aware of any Apple Marketing material saying things like that. 
It might exist, I don't know, as I'm not at all interested in any of 
this material. And thus I don't read it.

> You know why?
> Because you *know* my facts are right.

Your facts are ok (in this case). Your conclusion is wrong (resp., to be 
more precise, it cannot be based on the results of your tests).

> If they weren't correct - someone would refute them simply by reproducing
> my test and finding me to be wrong.

Why would reproducing a test that does not fit the scenario help? Devise 
a test that really supports your claim!

> You know why that won't happen?
> Because I'm right.

You're not.

> Facts are facts.
> Science is science.

Right. Then accept that and follow the well-proven path the scientific 
community has laid down and called the 'scientific process'.

> All you spout is Apple Marketing.
> Never a single fact will you provide in this entire thread.
>
> For example, how would *you* eliminate the Apple ID?
> Can you eliminate it on iOS as easily as I did on Android?

You're shifting subjects, again. We're talking about the AdID on 
Android, not any ID on iOS. Stay on-topic, i.e. since it was *you* who 
brought it up.

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33104

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-04 10:57 +0000
Message-ID	<nnv72c$roc$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33093

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:37:23 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You didn't prove that. The only thing you've proven is that you got rid 
> of the Google Play Services *app*. And it should make you wonder how 
> easy it is with only words to debunk your claim. Nothing more needed, 
> just words.

I sure hope you don't vote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33107

From	Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
Date	2016-08-04 13:07 +0200
Message-ID	<nnv7m8$dp8$3@news.sap-ag.de>
In reply to	#33104

Am 04.08.2016 um 12:57 schrieb Aardvarks:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:37:23 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> You didn't prove that. The only thing you've proven is that you got rid
>> of the Google Play Services *app*. And it should make you wonder how
>> easy it is with only words to debunk your claim. Nothing more needed,
>> just words.
>
> I sure hope you don't vote.

And that's what you call scientific reasoning?

Get lost,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33111

From	Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
Date	2016-08-04 11:01 -0700
Message-ID	<9c07qbt4knisqlcpmiaeqiv48nmbbshbqv@4ax.com>
In reply to	#33030

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:37:23 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

>Specific things only.
>Not Marketing crap please.

Even your Smartphone battery status is tracking your online browsing:
<http://tech.thaivisa.com/warning-your-smartphone-battery-status-is-being-used-to-track-your-every-move-online/16596/>
<http://randomwalker.info/publications/OpenWPM_1_million_site_tracking_measurement.pdf>
Resistance is futile.  So it capacitance and inductance.  You will be
conglomerated into the data mass.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?

Contents

#33095

#33114

#33060

#33081

#33082

#33083

#33084

#33092

#33100

#33105

#33062

#33063

#33113

#33076

#33080

#33103

#33093

#33104

#33107

#33111