Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51921 > unrolled thread

Apple's Report on Government Information Requests

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 08:40 -0700
    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-06 11:05 -0600
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 10:50 -0700
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 04:59 +1100
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 11:23 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 10:29 +1100
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2013-11-06 18:33 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 12:13 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 14:20 -0500
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 13:35 -0700
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 10:31 +1100
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2013-11-06 23:52 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests billy@MIX.COM - 2013-11-06 22:16 +0000
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-06 19:00 -0500
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-06 21:22 -0500
                Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-06 23:30 -0500
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-07 15:41 +1100
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-07 07:55 -0700
                    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-08 03:08 +1100
                  Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-07 08:51 -0800
                    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-07 18:42 -0500
                      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-08 12:21 +1100
              Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-07 17:23 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:31 +0000
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-07 11:08 -0600
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-08 08:58 +1300
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-08 09:12 +1100
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2013-11-08 11:36 -0600
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 20:34 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:29 +0000
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500
    Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 01:28 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-07 12:54 +1100
        Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-07 20:24 +0000
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests "Simon Antslinger" <sa1964@nospam.com> - 2013-11-08 09:13 +1100
          Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-07 18:21 -0500
            Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-08 05:07 +0000
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-06 21:32 -0500
      Re: Apple's Report on Government Information Requests nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-06 22:40 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#52042

Davoud:
>  > The death of a terrorist by drone strike is considered
> > to be a freely accepted occupational hazard.

Paul Magnussen:
> By whom? 

By a country that is defending itself from terrorists.

> Does the term international law mean anything to you?  Or due 
> process?  Or the fact that the US is a signatory to the United nations 
> Treaty?

International law makes it clear that a nation is entitled to defend
itself when attacked. The U.S. has been attacked many times by
terrorists, and we are defending ourselves.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#52045

"Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in message 
news:071120131842180455%star@sky.net...
> Davoud:
>>  > The death of a terrorist by drone strike is considered
>> > to be a freely accepted occupational hazard.
>
> Paul Magnussen:
>> By whom?
>
> By a country that is defending itself from terrorists.

Hardly any of the drone strikes have anything do with
defending the US from anyone.

>> Does the term international law mean anything to you?  Or due
>> process?  Or the fact that the US is a signatory to the United nations
>> Treaty?
>
> International law makes it clear that a nation is entitled to defend
> itself when attacked. The U.S. has been attacked many times by
> terrorists, and we are defending ourselves.

Hardly any of the drone strikes have anything do with
defending the US from anyone.
 

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

#51995

On 2013-11-07, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> Bert:
>> > Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
>> > by the government, for almost any reason. 
>
> Billy Y:
>> I would strike the word "almost" in the above.
>
> In fact, there are is a very narrow set of circumstances in which the
> government may seek a court order permitting the reading of your
> communications. If the government can show evidence that one or more of
> those circumstances applies to you, then they will likely get the
> order. But those circumstances don't apply to you, and the Intelligence
> Community does not know that you exist. You aren't the 'droid they're
> looking for, so relax.

Like you know...

-- 
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

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

#51950

In message <XnsA2707FC0C513DVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> 
  Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:061120131050133286%foo@bar.com Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com>
> wrote: 

>> In article
>> <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>, Doc
>> O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
>>>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>>> 
>>> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
>>> privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because,
>>> you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
>>> information is to not collect it in the first place.
>> 
>> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
>> people?

> Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
> devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
> side effect of storing it. 

All communication with iCloud is encrypted.

> Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> by the government, for almost any reason. 

That has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with the
criminal activities of the US Government.

> Depending on the exact wording of your agreement with Apple, it might
> also be subject to examination by Apple, or any of its partners. 

You are a troll and I claim my £5.

-- 
Once again I teeter at the precipice of the generation gap.

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

#51962

In article <slrnl7lrc8.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Unless the data that you store on Apple's "cloud" servers is completely
> > devoid of any private data, they're collecting it, even if it's simply a
> > side effect of storing it. 
> 
> All communication with iCloud is encrypted.

except that apple has the keys.

> > Once the data is on Apple's systems, it's subject to examination
> > by the government, for almost any reason. 
> 
> That has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with the
> criminal activities of the US Government.

irrelevant detail. 

your data is still compromised.

> > Depending on the exact wording of your agreement with Apple, it might
> > also be subject to examination by Apple, or any of its partners. 
> 
> You are a troll and I claim my £5.

he's exactly correct. the icloud agreement says they can.

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

#51992

In article <061120131050133286%foo@bar.com>,
 Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> In article <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> > 
> > Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
> > privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
> > you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> > information is to not collect it in the first place.
> 
> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
> people?

Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're 
*not*?  Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the 
inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts, 
calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud.  
I'm told Windows users are not similarly inconvenienced.

All evidenced behavior shows that Apple is not a particularly good actor 
here.  I applaud them for going the "warrant canary" route, but the 
devil is in the details.  The more precise the language used, the more 
you are left to wonder what is hidden in what they are not saying (and, 
potentially, what they are not *allowed* to say).

The point remains that they are pushing to suck up all my personal 
information onto their servers, and I have zero idea what they're 
*actually* doing with that information, government intervention or not.  
It should at least leave you with pause.

-- 
iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
    and probably your server, too.

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

#52013

Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

> In article <061120131050133286%foo@bar.com>,
>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
> > >  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> > > 
> > > Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of
> > > privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because,
> > > you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> > > information is to not collect it in the first place.
> > 
> > What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
> > people?
> 
> Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're 
> *not*?  Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the 
> inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts, 
> calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud.

The easiest method is iCloud, but you can use a different service, such
as Google, an Exchange server, or some other service which implements
CalDAV and CardDAV.

That can include a server you are running yourself on a computer on your
own local network, which is not accessible to the Internet if you have
your router set up correctly.

Any location other than iCloud means that Apple doesn't have access to
the server side copy of your data.

Paranoia about Apple insisting on getting its hands on your personal
data is not justified.

> I'm told Windows users are not similarly inconvenienced.

True: iTunes local sync is still possible on Windows. I haven't looked
into the technical details, but I expect this is because Windows is
providing a standard facility which deals with syncing data with Outlook
(or supported alternatives) from arbitrary sources.

The reason that iTunes can't do local sync any more with OS X 10.9 is
that Apple removed the Sync Services framework in 10.9. Sync Services
was responsible for merging data between applications like
Contacts/Address Book or Calendar/iCal and other local sources like
iTunes, Entourage/Outlook, BusyCal 1.6 or earlier, Missing Sync or
earlier Palm-compatible plugins for the iSync application.

Sync Services worked by holding a reference copy of the last synced
state, and compared its data with the source that was doing a sync,
pushing any resulting changes back to the source and out to the
application which displays the data, such as Contacts or Calendar. If
conflicts arose such as changes being made on two sources between syncs,
it would pop up a message asking for the user to resolve the sync.

Contacts and Calendar have their own local copy of the data, and if
iCloud or another online service is used, that copy is synced with the
online service (not using Sync Services).

Apple had already classified Sync Services as being deprecated in
Mountain Lion, and in Mavericks they dropped it. The iSync application
was removed earlier, if I remember right.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#52032

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote
>> Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote
>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote
>>>>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote

>>>>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

>>>> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side
>>>> of privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.
>>>> Because, you know, the first step in protecting your customer's
>>>> private information is to not collect it in the first place.

>>> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on 
>>> people?

>> Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're
>> *not*?  Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the
>> inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts,
>> calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud.

> The easiest method is iCloud, but you can use a different service, such
> as Google, an Exchange server, or some other service which implements
> CalDAV and CardDAV.

> That can include a server you are running yourself on a computer on your
> own local network, which is not accessible to the Internet if you have
> your router set up correctly.

> Any location other than iCloud means that Apple doesn't have access to
> the server side copy of your data.

> Paranoia about Apple insisting on getting its hands on your personal
> data is not justified.

That's very arguable indeed given that Apple chose not to
allow local usb or wifi anymore.

>> I'm told Windows users are not similarly inconvenienced.

> True: iTunes local sync is still possible on Windows. I haven't
> looked into the technical details, but I expect this is because
> Windows is providing a standard facility which deals with syncing data
> with Outlook (or supported alternatives) from arbitrary sources.

> The reason that iTunes can't do local sync any more with OS X 10.9
> is that Apple removed the Sync Services framework in 10.9. Sync
> Services was responsible for merging data between applications like
> Contacts/Address Book or Calendar/iCal and other local sources like
> iTunes, Entourage/Outlook, BusyCal 1.6 or earlier, Missing Sync or
> earlier Palm-compatible plugins for the iSync application.

> Sync Services worked by holding a reference copy of the last synced
> state, and compared its data with the source that was doing a sync,
> pushing any resulting changes back to the source and out to the
> application which displays the data, such as Contacts or Calendar. If
> conflicts arose such as changes being made on two sources between
> syncs, it would pop up a message asking for the user to resolve the sync.

> Contacts and Calendar have their own local copy of the data, and if
> iCloud or another online service is used, that copy is synced with the
> online service (not using Sync Services).

> Apple had already classified Sync Services as being deprecated
> in Mountain Lion, and in Mavericks they dropped it. The iSync
> application was removed earlier, if I remember right.
 

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

#52061

In article <1lc0d14.1u0aw63k7fnetN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <061120131050133286%foo@bar.com>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
> > > >  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> > > > 
> > > > Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of
> > > > privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because,
> > > > you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> > > > information is to not collect it in the first place.
> > > 
> > > What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
> > > people?
> > 
> > Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're 
> > *not*?  Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the 
> > inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts, 
> > calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud.
> 
> The easiest method is iCloud, but you can use a different service, such
> as Google, an Exchange server, or some other service which implements
> CalDAV and CardDAV.

No, the easiest method is what they do with all my other (coincidentally 
less-easy to data mine) information, which is to sync with my Mac.  No 
worldwide accessible servers required.  It's what they apparently still 
support for iTunes on Windows.

> That can include a server you are running yourself on a computer on your
> own local network, which is not accessible to the Internet if you have
> your router set up correctly.

That is not easier than just doing a local sync, which works just fine 
for most other information on my iOS devices.  Again, it should leave 
you with pause when you consider *why* certain information is being 
pushed into iCloud.  Such actions are inconsistent with the words Apple 
uses to describe their privacy stance.

> Any location other than iCloud means that Apple doesn't have access to
> the server side copy of your data.

It remains the case that Apple *is* pushing their users to iCloud as the 
"easiest method".  That is not a policy of a company that is truly 
interested in user privacy.

> Paranoia about Apple insisting on getting its hands on your personal
> data is not justified.

It's not paranoia to note what companies have done with private 
information.  It is not paranoia to note that companies have lied to do 
those things.  It is not paranoia to note that the government has been 
show to be a worse actor than companies in this regard.  You are being a 
fool if you assert that it is We The People that need to justify 
ourselves here.

> The reason that iTunes can't do local sync any more with OS X 10.9 is
> that Apple removed the Sync Services framework in 10.9.

Indeed; we all understand this.  I welcome you to pause and think about 
*how doing this helps protect my privacy*.

-- 
iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
    and probably your server, too.

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

#52023

In message <droleary-834B23.11085307112013@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <061120131050133286%foo@bar.com>,
>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:

>> In article <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
>> >  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>> > 
>> > Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
>> > privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
>> > you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
>> > information is to not collect it in the first place.
>> 
>> What makes you think that Apple is collecting private information on
>> people?

> Other than precisely worded legalese, what makes you think they're 
> *not*?  Upon upgrading to 10.9, Mac users were greeted with the 
> inability to keep structured personal information (e.g., contacts, 
> calendars) in sync across their Apple devices without the use of iCloud.

That is simply not true. iCloud is not required.

-- 
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents -- except at
occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind
which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies)
rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of
the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

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

#51949

In message <droleary-49EEF2.11050806112013@news.eternal-september.org> 
  Doc O'Leary <droleary@6usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> In article <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>,
>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:

>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

> Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
> privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
> you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> information is to not collect it in the first place.

First, no one is forced to use iCloud. Second, Apple is not collecting
your private information. It is stored in YOUR iCloud. You have access
to it, and there's never been even the slightest hint that Apple has
ever accessed that data.

-- 
'Yeah, well, I didn't sign up for world domination,' said Medium Dave.
'That sort of thing gets you into trouble.' --Hogfather

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

#51961

In article <slrnl7lr8l.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> 
> > Apple is on the side of Apple.  If they were truly on the side of 
> > privacy, they wouldn't be trying to force iCloud on people.  Because, 
> > you know, the first step in protecting your customer's private 
> > information is to not collect it in the first place.
> 
> First, no one is forced to use iCloud.

technically maybe not, but the reality is most users do.

calendars and contacts no longer sync over usb, and although it's
possible to use your own caldav and cardav server, very, very few will
know how to set that up.

you could also use google but that's not really any different than
icloud. the data is on someone else's system. 

> Second, Apple is not collecting
> your private information. 

other than you giving it to them, you mean?

> It is stored in YOUR iCloud. You have access
> to it, and there's never been even the slightest hint that Apple has
> ever accessed that data.

they say they will remove anything objectionable, which means they do.

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

#51948

In message <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com> 
  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.

They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
third parties, for example. They've never sold their customers info to
anyone. They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.

-- 
"Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of
belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical
system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystic gibberish made up
on the spur of the moment?" Wen considered this for some time, and a
last said: "A fish!"

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

#51953

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnl7lr5p.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local...
> In message <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>
>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>
> They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
> third parties, for example. They've never sold their customers info to
> anyone.

> They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.

That is bullshit. Plenty of others don't either. 

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

#52022

In message <be0a6vF6t9eU1@mid.individual.net> 
  Simon Antslinger <sa1964@nospam.com> wrote:


> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
> news:slrnl7lr5p.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local...
>> In message <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>
>>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>>
>> They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
>> third parties, for example. They've never sold their customers info to
>> anyone.

>> They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.

> That is bullshit. Plenty of others don't either. 

Well, I know that the other computer makers like Dull and HP have shared
their mailing lists with others. Many companies do this, and always have.

-- 
If it wasn't for the pirates, I bet Star Wars: Ep III would have mad $50
million its first DAY!

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

#52033

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message 
news:slrnl7nto7.1lue.g.kreme@mbp55.local...
> In message <be0a6vF6t9eU1@mid.individual.net>
>  Simon Antslinger <sa1964@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>> news:slrnl7lr5p.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local...
>>> In message <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>
>>>  Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>>>
>>> They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
>>> third parties, for example. They've never sold their customers info to
>>> anyone.
>
>>> They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.
>
>> That is bullshit. Plenty of others don't either.
>
> Well, I know that the other computer makers like Dull and HP have shared
> their mailing lists with others. Many companies do this, and always have.

Separate matter entirely to your originally claim. 

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

#52039

On 11-07-2013, 15:24, Lewis wrote:
 > Well, I know that the other computer makers like Dull and HP have shared
> their mailing lists with others. Many companies do this, and always have.

And Apple has done so as well.  Perhaps by accident, but I described one 
such incident in this thread and elsewhere.


-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

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

#52050

In message <l5h794$e1o$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-07-2013, 15:24, Lewis wrote:
> > Well, I know that the other computer makers like Dull and HP have shared
>> their mailing lists with others. Many companies do this, and always have.

> And Apple has done so as well.  Perhaps by accident, but I described one 
> such incident in this thread and elsewhere.

Well, it's never happened to me.

-- 
I presume you're mortal, and may err.

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

#51955

On 11-06-2013, 20:28, Lewis wrote:
> In message <061120130840230696%foo@bar.com>
>    Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
>
> They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
> third parties, for example. They've never sold their customers info to
> anyone. They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.

When you use words like "never" and "always," you tend to be wrong.

In 1999 or 2000, whenever it was that I bought my first¹ new iMac,
I filled out the registration form with my correct address.  As is my 
custom for the rare occasions in which I reveal that to merchants,
I put "NO JUNK MAIL !!!" as the second address line.

I removed the tick from the "share my information with others" box.
(if Apple has never shared customer information, why was that box 
there?)  For the next six months, each month I received catalogs from 
four stores not owned by Apple, with "NO JUNK MAIL !!" under my address.

¹and last.  All since have been “pre-owned”

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

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

#51960

In article <slrnl7lr5p.19go.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Quite interesting.  Apple is on the side of privacy.
> 
> They always have been. Apple has never shared customer information with
> third parties, for example. 

except when they have to.

> They've never sold their customers info to
> anyone. They are just about the only company that doesn't do this.

nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web