Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "David B." Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:06:53 +0100 Lines: 120 Message-ID: References: <0vycnWMgC6A0yAr1nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@supernews.com> Reply-To: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net Ry/ENR/oXChgoMedSPl8yQXBmo+STFlWfkJbMwXqYhI4UeqFk/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:mdSQwzDPNTVEBLEoKajs+vcsQzo= sha256:v1ZcHfVxKLoG44SVZHFYkgJBt9jp8PGxVV+QidZKeXQ= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:136513 uk.comp.sys.mac:181670 On 09/08/2025 22:47, David B. wrote: > On 09/08/2025 22:09, Tyrone wrote: >> On Aug 9, 2025 at 1:54:57 PM EDT, ""David B."" wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: >>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you, or anyone else, can explain why: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>         No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other >>>>>>> professional work, >>>>>> >>>>>> Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records". >>>>>> >>>>>>>         There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects >>>>>>> and sends, >>>>>>> despite requiring Full Disk Access, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is >>>>>> nothing wrong >>>>>> with it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> …then by all means, enlighten me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are >>>>>> answering your >>>>>> questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the >>>>>> answers to >>>>>> your "questions". >>>>>> >>>>>>> Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>>>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have asked these questions MANY TIMES.  They have been >>>>>> answered MANY >>>>>> TIMES. Drop it and move on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tyrone, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your reply. >>>>> >>>>> You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found >>>>> nothing wrong. >>>> >>>> Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with >>>> EtreCheck? >>>>     YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove >>>> them. >>>> Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Not the >>>> other way >>>> around. >>>> >>>> Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this?  Don't >>>> you think >>>> that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been >>>> banned) >>>> have looked into this?  Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? >>>> Even your >>>> former hero Howard Oakley. >>>> >>>> You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck.  Over and over and >>>> over. You >>>> are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You >>>> don't >>>> know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily. >>>> Yet you >>>> presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent. >>>> >>>> Why is that?  Just because an innocent person (the author of >>>> EtreCheck) is >>>> avoiding a stalker (you)? >>>> >>>> AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Not the >>>> other way >>>> around. >>> >>> Tyrone, >>> >>> I’m not asking anyone to “prove guilt” — I’m asking for verifiable >>> facts. >> >> WE ARE DEMANIND FOR YOU TO PROVE GUILT.   Because YOU are claiming guilt >> WITHOUT "verifiable facts". >> >>> That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the >>> question far better than personal assumptions about my motives. >> >> Yes, it is. So why are you alleging guilt without "clear, documented >> evidence"? >> >> And we all know your personal motives.  No assumptions necessary. > > Tyrone, > > I’m not alleging “guilt” — I’m pointing out that claims of independent > audits are being made without any cited names, reports, or methodologies > that others can verify. > > If you or anyone else can point to a public, third-party technical audit > of EtreCheck’s code or data handling, please link it. That’s all I’ve > asked for from the start. > > Presumption of innocence in law is not the same as bypassing basic due > diligence in software security — especially for a tool with Full Disk > Access. > > Until those sources are cited, “lots of people have looked at it” > remains an unverified assertion, not evidence. > > *Do you understand*? *BUMP*