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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #121473 > unrolled thread

Re: facetime privacy bug

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-31 18:34 +0000
    Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 00:30 +0000
      Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-01-31 17:47 -0800
        Re: facetime privacy bug Ed Norton <norton@nowhere.com> - 2019-01-31 21:17 -0500
          Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-01-31 18:33 -0800
          Re: facetime privacy bug nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 22:55 -0500
          Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2019-02-01 08:48 -0500
            Re: facetime privacy bug YK <xxxxx@dialme.com> - 2019-02-01 20:56 -0500
              Re: facetime privacy bug "David B." <"David B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> - 2019-02-02 08:50 +0000
                Re: facetime privacy bug Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2019-02-02 09:55 +0000
                  Re: facetime privacy bug nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-02 06:25 -0500
                  Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2019-02-02 10:22 -0500
                    Re: facetime privacy bug Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2019-02-02 18:07 +0000
                      Re: facetime privacy bug nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-02 13:09 -0500
                        Re: facetime privacy bug Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2019-02-02 18:28 +0000
              Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2019-02-02 10:22 -0500
        Re: facetime privacy bug Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2019-02-01 03:12 +0000
        Re: facetime privacy bug nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-31 22:55 -0500
          Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-01-31 19:58 -0800
            Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 04:48 +0000
              Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-01-31 23:08 -0800
                Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 15:05 +0000
                  Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-01 08:27 -0800
                    Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 18:55 +0000
                      Re: facetime privacy bug nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:13 -0500
                        Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 19:39 +0000
                      Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-01 11:25 -0800
                        Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-01 19:39 +0000
                          Re: facetime privacy bug John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2019-02-01 15:46 -0800
                            Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-02 17:58 +0000
                              Re: facetime privacy bug John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2019-02-02 15:13 -0800
                                Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-03 03:43 +0000
                                  Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-03 13:25 -0800
                                    Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-04 17:33 +0000
                                      Re: facetime privacy bug John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 14:38 -0800
                          Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-03 11:48 -0800
                            Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-03 22:06 +0000
                              Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-03 15:31 -0800
                                Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-04 03:40 +0000
                                  Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-03 20:11 -0800
                                    Re: facetime privacy bug arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-02-04 17:33 +0000
                                      Re: facetime privacy bug John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 14:50 -0800
                                      Re: facetime privacy bug Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2019-02-04 16:30 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#121473 — Re: facetime privacy bug

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:19:16 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> It took them a week to respond to initial reports.

Wow. 
That's shocking that a known Apple Apologist can comprehend facts.

I'm impressed, Alan Browne.
Seriously.

I'm impressed that you're the _first_ known Apologist who _comprehended_
that Apple "sat" on the bug even after the mother implored them in no
uncertain terms.

Since the bug is trivial to reproduce, the only logical conclusion is that
Apple didn't give a shit ... until ... until .... until ... 

Until the mother of the child who found the bug using Facetime in the
normal way finally gave up on Apple, and exasperated, took it to the
Internet.

It was only _after_ the news broke by 9-to-5 that Apple "gave a shit".

It's yet again proof that Apple doesn't care about _actual_ privacy.
o All Apple cares about is the IMAGE of privacy

The reason, I posit, is not because Apple is stupid
o On the contrary, Apple Marketing PROPAGANDA is the best in the world

What Apple cares about, more than anything, is the IMAGE of privacy.
o It's a _branding_ thing with Apple.

Hence, Apple sat on the bug until it went overly public.
o At that point, Apple yanked the functionality 

Notice the facts:
1. The bug is trivial to reproduce
2. The bug was clearly reported to Apple well before they reacted
3. Apple _only_ reacted when the exasperated mother got publicicy

The proof is obvious:
o Apple doesn't care about privacy
o Apple cares about the IMAGE of privacy

That's why, I posit, that Apple doesn't bother to test their product
o People _feel_ safe simply by the diarrhea of frequent releases

And that, to a MARKETING organization, is all that matters.
o HINT: Apple products are no more or less private 
o DOUBLEHINT: But Apple MARKETING PROPAGANDA touts it nonetheless

The fool isn't Apple ... Apple MARKETING is actually _brilliant_
o The fool is the customer who only wants to _feel_ safe
o HINT: They don't have the brains to comprehend what it takes to _be_ safe

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#121514

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:34:33 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Until the mother of the child who found the bug using Facetime in the
> normal way finally gave up on Apple, and exasperated, took it to the
> Internet.

Actually, I apologize for not getting all the facts straight.

I just re-read the article (which I reported about days ago, 
so I had not re-read it since then - but I just re-read it now).

The mother, a lawyer, reported it to Apple in no uncertain 
terms, by providing a video showing it in action unequivocally, 
on Jan 20th.

*The fact is that the bug is extremely trivial to reproduce.*
o Even for Apple

According to the NY Times, the mother "exhausted every 
other avenue she could, including emailing and faxing 
Apple's security team".

Yet, Apple clearly "sat" on the bug, which the NY Times clearly states.

Then the NY Times says, verbatim:
   "It wasn't until more than a week after Ms. Thompson first 
    notified Apple of the problem that Apple raced to disable 
    Group Face Time ... the company reacted after a separate 
    developer reported the Face Time flaw and it was written 
    about on 9to5mac.com in an article that went viral."

*Notice these facts & circumstances are very common with Apple.*

1. Apple doesn't actually give a shit about privacy - that's clear.
2. Apple doesn't even give a shit about testing software - that's clear.
3. But what Apple gives a shit about - is IMAGE

Boy oh boy, does Apple care about IMAGE!
o Image, to Apple, is literally _everything_*!

The split second this egregious bug hit the Internet - Apple reacted.
o And yet, the proof is abundantly clear, they "sat" on it until then.

The takeaway is clear to any cognizant sentient logical adult
o What matters to Apple is _not_ privacy
o What matters to Apple is the IMAGE of privacy

Big difference.

It's why I posit the obvious-to-me (a logical sentient adult) that
o Apple users want to _feel_ safe
o Without caring about actually _being_ safe

And Apple Marketing (whom I posit knows their customer the best)
o Gives those customers _exactly_ that (i.e., the _feeling_ of safety)

HINT: Want more proof? 
o Read _this_ recent thread.

o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

Or this recent one...

o icloud privacy breach
 <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eZjiSd1HneE>

Or any of these older ones...

o Lockscreen exploit easily found only hours after iOS 12.1 released
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/4rM5ZPCgThI/X8HEf0BvCAAJ>

o A massive security hole has been found in iOS 11
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xGV0X_Qfqc4/VqqWWwMXBAAJ>

o It is yet another shoddy example of Apple rushing to fix a critical issue 
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/mqTrBBlvGCU/jrJWtF8DBAAJ>

o How to work around the new Apple iOS7 infinite loop of mistrust bug on Linux?
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/_e0czhOYSHo/WuyowzN73IsJ>

o Every time iOS updates, Apple causes new problems in the REAL world...
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

o Yet again, Apple forgot to test iOS 11.2.6 in the real world
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

o iOS 12.1 Beta Includes Fix for iOS 12 iPhone and iPad Charging Issue
 <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pdlKvBUmrj0/8jnSieURAwAJ>
etc.

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

#121520

On 2019-01-31 4:30 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:34:33 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
> 
>> Until the mother of the child who found the bug using Facetime in the
>> normal way finally gave up on Apple, and exasperated, took it to the
>> Internet.
> 
> Actually, I apologize for not getting all the facts straight.
> 
> I just re-read the article (which I reported about days ago,
> so I had not re-read it since then - but I just re-read it now).
> 
> The mother, a lawyer, reported it to Apple in no uncertain
> terms, by providing a video showing it in action unequivocally,
> on Jan 20th.

Do you have a link to this video? I've gone looking for it and can't 
find it.

Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm 
pretty sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.

> 
> *The fact is that the bug is extremely trivial to reproduce.*
> o Even for Apple
> 
> According to the NY Times, the mother "exhausted every
> other avenue she could, including emailing and faxing
> Apple's security team".

Actually that's "According to the NY Times, the mother CLAIMED she 
"exhausted..."

> 
> Yet, Apple clearly "sat" on the bug, which the NY Times clearly states.
> 
> Then the NY Times says, verbatim:
>     "It wasn't until more than a week after Ms. Thompson first
>      notified Apple of the problem that Apple raced to disable
>      Group Face Time ... the company reacted after a separate
>      developer reported the Face Time flaw and it was written
>      about on 9to5mac.com in an article that went viral."

Except we don't know what the "notification" she sent actually was.

> 
> *Notice these facts & circumstances are very common with Apple.*
> 
> 1. Apple doesn't actually give a shit about privacy - that's clear.

That's an assertion. You do understand that, right?

> 2. Apple doesn't even give a shit about testing software - that's clear.

That's an assertion. You do understand that, right?

> 3. But what Apple gives a shit about - is IMAGE

That's an assertion. You do understand that, right?

> 
> Boy oh boy, does Apple care about IMAGE!
> o Image, to Apple, is literally _everything_*!
> 
> The split second this egregious bug hit the Internet - Apple reacted.
> o And yet, the proof is abundantly clear, they "sat" on it until then.

Or they were hard at work from the moment they first actually heard 
about it.

You don't know which is true, but you really don't care.


The rest of your post was far too tedious to bother with.

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

#121522

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:47:12 -0500, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <q308et$llg$3@gioia.aioe.org>):

> Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm pretty 
> sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.

It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open 
a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty 
appalling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mother+facetime+bug+%22developer+account


-- 
Ed

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

#121523

On 2019-01-31 6:17 p.m., Ed Norton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:47:12 -0500, Alan Baker wrote
> (in article <q308et$llg$3@gioia.aioe.org>):
> 
>> Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm pretty
>> sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.
> 
> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
> appalling.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Mother+facetime+bug+%22developer+account
> 
> 

Hmmm...

This completely refutes "Arlen's" narrative that it was "more than a 
week before Apple responded.

The NY Times report he relies on that says she "sent" Apple a video on 
January 19th is WRONG.

The video was uploaded 4 days later.

<https://twitter.com/BEASTMODE/status/1090298850764644352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090298850764644352&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F9to5mac.com%2F2019%2F01%2F29%2Ffacetime-bug-apple-teenager%2F>


So Apple's response wasn't 9 days after they were informed...

...it was 5 days; two of which were a weekend.

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

#121527

In article <0001HW.D879166E08F75463B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Ed
Norton <norton@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm pretty 
> > sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.
> 
> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open 
> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty 
> appalling.

a developer account is free. 

there is a $99 level, but that's not required to simply report a bug.

what *does* matter is that bug reporting is done through proper
channels so the correct people see it, and that sure as hell isn't
going to happen with a tweet from a new twitter account asking for
money.

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

#121544

On 2019-01-31 21:17, Ed Norton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 20:47:12 -0500, Alan Baker wrote
> (in article <q308et$llg$3@gioia.aioe.org>):
> 
>> Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm pretty
>> sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.
> 
> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
> appalling.

I have an account and I never paid a nickel.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#121606

On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>> appalling.
> 
> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.

I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#121609

On 02/02/2019 01:56, YK wrote:
> On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>>> appalling.
>>
>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
> 
> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)

Likewise! ;-)

-- 
David B.

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

#121611

In article <uRc5E.102377$us2.95945@fx30.fr7>, David B. <
B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/02/2019 01:56, YK wrote:
>> On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
>>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>>>> appalling.
>>>
>>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
>> 
>> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)
>
>Likewise! ;-)

Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
Gatekeeper happy?

-- 
HAL 9000:    Dave.  Put down those Windows disks.  Dave.  DAVE!

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

#121614

In article <020220190955026463%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> >>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
> >>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
> >>>> appalling.
> >>>
> >>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
> >> 
> >> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)
> >
> >Likewise! ;-)
> 
> Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
> to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
> Gatekeeper happy?

only the ability to report bugs, which is included with the free level.

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

#121620

On 2019-02-02 04:55, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <uRc5E.102377$us2.95945@fx30.fr7>, David B. <
> B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/02/2019 01:56, YK wrote:
>>> On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to 
>>>>> open
>>>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>>>>> appalling.
>>>>
>>>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
>>>
>>> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)
>>
>> Likewise! ;-)
> 
> Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
> to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
> Gatekeeper happy?

Of course not.  But we can make full bug reports into the Apple bug 
reporting black hole.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#121644

In article <8oudnUeYC_dSKMjBnZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

>On 2019-02-02 04:55, Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <uRc5E.102377$us2.95945@fx30.fr7>, David B. <
>> B"@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 02/02/2019 01:56, YK wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to 
>>>>>> open
>>>>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>>>>>> appalling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
>>>>
>>>> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)
>>>
>>> Likewise! ;-)
>> 
>> Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
>> to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
>> Gatekeeper happy?
>
>Of course not.  But we can make full bug reports into the Apple bug 
>reporting black hole.

I haven't done that for a few years, certainly not since Apple started
charging $100/year for developer accounts.

I think the last one I put in was related to issues in Safari 6 or so,
when it behaved funny after wake up from sleep. Years ago now.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#121645

In article <020220191807445960%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> >> Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
> >> to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
> >> Gatekeeper happy?
> >
> >Of course not.  But we can make full bug reports into the Apple bug 
> >reporting black hole.
> 
> I haven't done that for a few years, certainly not since Apple started
> charging $100/year for developer accounts.

apple doesn't charge $100/year to report a bug. 

the free tier is sufficient.

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

#121648

In article <020220191309472959%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <020220191807445960%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
><timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Are you all talking about Apple Developer Accounts that give you access
>> >> to Apple certificates that allow you to code-sign your apps to keep
>> >> Gatekeeper happy?
>> >
>> >Of course not.  But we can make full bug reports into the Apple bug 
>> >reporting black hole.
>> 
>> I haven't done that for a few years, certainly not since Apple started
>> charging $100/year for developer accounts.
>
>apple doesn't charge $100/year to report a bug.

Did I say they did?

>the free tier is sufficient.

What is the "free tier"? When I tried to re-activate my developer
account is when they wanted money.

-- 
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."

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

#121619

On 2019-02-01 20:56, YK wrote:
> On 2/1/19 8:48 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> It has been reported that an Apple rep told her that she'd have to open
>>> a Developer Account ($100) to report it.  If true, that's pretty
>>> appalling.
>>
>> I have an account and I never paid a nickel.
> 
> I have one also and I never paid a penny. :)

Damn. You didn't pay 5 times more than I did!  I got ripped!


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

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

#121524

Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> wrote:
> On 2019-01-31 4:30 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, I apologize for not getting all the facts straight.
>> 
>> I just re-read the article (which I reported about days ago,
>> so I had not re-read it since then - but I just re-read it now).

"I didn't see the report from the intelligence. When you read it, it is a
lot different than what is covered in the news." - “President” Donny Trump

-- 
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]

#121526

In article <q308et$llg$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
wrote:

> > 
> > The mother, a lawyer, reported it to Apple in no uncertain
> > terms, by providing a video showing it in action unequivocally,
> > on Jan 20th.
> 
> Do you have a link to this video? I've gone looking for it and can't 
> find it.
> 
> Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm 
> pretty sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.

it was sent via a newly created twitter account and was also attempting
to negotiate a reward for having found a bug.

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

#121528

On 2019-01-31 7:55 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <q308et$llg$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> The mother, a lawyer, reported it to Apple in no uncertain
>>> terms, by providing a video showing it in action unequivocally,
>>> on Jan 20th.
>>
>> Do you have a link to this video? I've gone looking for it and can't
>> find it.
>>
>> Do you know by what conduit she "reported it to Apple"? Because I'm
>> pretty sure Apple isn't out there checking YouTube.
> 
> it was sent via a newly created twitter account and was also attempting
> to negotiate a reward for having found a bug.
> 

And, according to the video of the video provided by a supporter...

...was posted 4 days later than the NY Times (and "arlen") claimed.

:-)

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

#121529

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:58:02 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> And, according to the video of the video provided by a supporter...
> ...was posted 4 days later than the NY Times (and "arlen") claimed.

Jesus Christ - you're an utter idiot Alan Baker. 
o You can't even keep your videos straight for Christs' sake.

You Apologists are so left-side Dunning-Kruger, it's unbelievable
o You can't even get something as simple as a timeline correct.

You Apologists, don't comprehend even the simplest of things.
o Like simple freaking time lines.

*Your brains are like lead bricks when it comes to comprehending facts.*

According to the NY Times... 
 Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
 <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

Here's the chronology, as reported in _that_ article as facts:
1. The 14-year old "discovered" the bug on January 19th.
2. His mother sent the video to Apple on January 20th.

At that time, she, a lawyer, clearly warned Apple of a "major security flaw".
3. She didn't hear back from Apple Support.
4. She emailed Apple's security team.
5. She faxed Apple's security team.

HINT: She's a lawyer ... so she _knows_ how to create a paper trail.
6. After "exhausting every other avenue" with Apple ... she posted to Twitter.
7. She posted to Facebook.

Finally, on January 25th, Apple Product Security Team "encouraged" her to 
"set up a developer account" to "send a formal bug report" (which is 
patently ridiculous - no matter how nospam sping his Apologist shit).

I repeat: There is no sane adult who wouldn't think this request utterly 
and fantastically ridiculous - given that she already sent them far more 
than they would need to reproduce the bug in about two minutes' effort.

I repeat once more: Only an idiot would think that she needs to "set up a 
developer account" to tell Apple of something this _trivial_ for Apple to 
reproduce - and - I must add - this critical for Apple to fix.

One more time: Only a moron would suggest she "set up a developer account" 
to report a bug this easy to reproduce - and this important.

OK. Now that we've covered that ... 
8. At some point after #7 above, a developer reported the flaw
by posting the video that Alan Baker mentioned (where, we note that Alan 
Baker is so freaking stupid he can't even get his videos sorted out).

9. That developer _might_ be "Benji Mobb" based on this post:
<https://twitter.com/BmManski/status/1089967572307640325>
That post is dated "11:24 AM - 28 Jan 2019".

10. That video also, apparently (according to 9to5Mac), went to Snapchat.
11. On January 28th at 3:41 pm, Pacific Time, 0to5Mac reported on the flaw
o Major iPhone FaceTime bug lets you hear the audio of the person you are calling … before they pick up
 <https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/28/facetime-bug-hear-audio/>

12. Only _after_ that, on January 28th, apparently, did Apple "race to 
disable Group Face Time" (according to the NY Times article).

That's the timeline, as constructed from the three main sources above.

What that _clearly_ shows is very simple, for sentient adults to comprehend:
A. Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy bugs
B. Apple wouldn't even spend _two minutes_ to test them
C. Apple _only_ reacted _after_ a dozen steps made them look bad

In short, Apple doesn't give a shit about privacy, as proven by two facts:

1. The bug exists (which means they don't test _anything_ in the real world)
2. They didn't bother to do _anything_ (as far as anyone knows) 
until so much publicitiy was generated that they started _looking_ bad.

*And if there's one thing Apple cares about, it's _IMAGE_.*

In short:
o Apple _clearly_ doesn't give a shit about actual privacy
o But Apple cares a tremendous amount about the IMAGE of privacy

The proof is ample in the events that occurred.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web