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

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #180649 > unrolled thread

Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy

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

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

  Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-12 10:00 +0000
    Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-12 12:40 +0000
      Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-12 20:52 +0000
        Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2025-03-13 12:00 +0000
          Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-13 15:00 +0000
            Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-13 15:23 +0000
    Re: Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy David <David.is@home.today> - 2025-03-19 14:15 +0000

#180649 — Howard Oakley - his article on Privacy

On 12/03/2025 08:51, David wrote:

> https://eclecticlight.co/2025/03/12/why-all-this-privacy-protection-an- 
> overview/
> 
> //When you run an app, it naturally runs with your full user’s 
> privileges, and has access to everything according to the permissions 
> set on folders and files. Just as you want your privileges to give the 
> Finder and your mail client access to all your emails and their 
> enclosures, all other apps that you run enjoy those same privileges. But 
> would you also want a third-party note-taking or photo-editing app to 
> have that same level of access, even without your knowledge? Similarly, 
> while you want FaceTime to have access to your Mac’s camera and 
> microphone, would you be happy for any other app to access them without 
> your being asked?//
> 
> ChatGPT says ....
> 
> Howard Oakley's article gives a solid rundown of how macOS has evolved 
> its privacy protection — it’s no longer just about file permissions but 
> about controlling app access to sensitive data and devices. Interesting 
> to see how macOS 15 Sequoia now re-prompts users about screen recording 
> permissions.
> 
> The focus on consent (like giving apps access to your camera or mic) 
> versus intent (like choosing to save a file in Documents) is a smart way 
> to break down how Apple handles privacy. And that attribution chain 
> concept — tracing what app requested access, especially for command-line 
> tools — makes sense, though it must be a headache for devs trying to get 
> everything right.
> 
> =
> 
> I asked - "Can you see how EtreCheck can get around all this protection?"
> 
> =
> 
> EtreCheck, like any other macOS app, can’t technically "get around" 
> these privacy protections — but it can *request* the necessary 
> permissions and use clever methods to gather system information. Let’s 
> break down how it likely works:
> 
> 1. **Full Disk Access (FDA):**
>     EtreCheck guides users to grant it **Full Disk Access** — a powerful 
> permission that lets it bypass many of the privacy barriers protecting 
> locations like `~/Documents`, `~/Downloads`, iCloud Drive, and Time 
> Machine backups. Once FDA is enabled, EtreCheck can gather detailed 
> information about your disk, logs, and system configuration without 
> constant consent prompts.
> 
> 2. **Attribution Chain and Helper Tools:**
>     EtreCheck may use helper tools or command-line utilities (like 
> `kextstat`, `ps`, or `tccutil`) to gather data. These tools run under 
> the main app’s permissions, so if the app has FDA, its subprocesses 
> inherit those privileges through the attribution chain. This lets 
> EtreCheck access data indirectly — like running shell commands to 
> inspect running processes or kernel extensions.
> 
> 3. **Entitlements and Info.plist:**
>     EtreCheck might include specific **entitlements** baked into its app 
> signature, allowing it to request camera/microphone access or inspect 
> protected folders. The Info.plist likely contains the required consent 
> dialog text, so macOS knows what to show users when requesting permissions.
> 
> 4. **Terminal and Scripting:**
>     If you manually run EtreCheck or any of its tools from Terminal 
> (especially if Terminal has FDA), it gains even more power, as Terminal 
> itself acts as the "parent app" in the attribution chain.
> 
> 5. **Transparency to Users:**
>     EtreCheck emphasizes that it’s "safe" by highlighting its read-only 
> nature and the lack of network access — but once you’ve granted it FDA, 
> it can access vast amounts of data. It doesn’t technically "bypass" 
> protections — it just uses the permissions you give it.
> 
> Would you like to dig into how we can check what permissions EtreCheck 
> has on your system, or perhaps run a `tccutil` command to reset them? 
> Let me know how deep you want to go!
> 
> =
> 
> No, I'm not running EtreCheck on this iMac - I erased my hard drive to 
> eradicate it. I don't trust a Developer who will not communicate with me!
> 
> =
> 
> ChatGPT said:
> 
> That makes perfect sense — trust is key, especially when it comes to 
> apps with deep system access like EtreCheck. Let me know if you want to 
> dive into other ways to monitor or lock down system privacy and 
> permissions on your iMac!


Views welcomed!

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180651

On 12/03/2025 10:00, David wrote:
> On 12/03/2025 08:51, David wrote:
> 
>> https://eclecticlight.co/2025/03/12/why-all-this-privacy-protection- 
>> an- overview/
>>
>> //When you run an app, it naturally runs with your full user’s 
>> privileges, and has access to everything according to the permissions 
>> set on folders and files. Just as you want your privileges to give the 
>> Finder and your mail client access to all your emails and their 
>> enclosures, all other apps that you run enjoy those same privileges. 
>> But would you also want a third-party note-taking or photo-editing app 
>> to have that same level of access, even without your knowledge? 
>> Similarly, while you want FaceTime to have access to your Mac’s camera 
>> and microphone, would you be happy for any other app to access them 
>> without your being asked?//
>>
>> ChatGPT says ....
>>
>> Howard Oakley's article gives a solid rundown of how macOS has evolved 
>> its privacy protection — it’s no longer just about file permissions 
>> but about controlling app access to sensitive data and devices. 
>> Interesting to see how macOS 15 Sequoia now re-prompts users about 
>> screen recording permissions.
>>
>> The focus on consent (like giving apps access to your camera or mic) 
>> versus intent (like choosing to save a file in Documents) is a smart 
>> way to break down how Apple handles privacy. And that attribution 
>> chain concept — tracing what app requested access, especially for 
>> command-line tools — makes sense, though it must be a headache for 
>> devs trying to get everything right.
>>
>> =
>>
>> I asked - "Can you see how EtreCheck can get around all this protection?"
>>
>> =
>>
>> EtreCheck, like any other macOS app, can’t technically "get around" 
>> these privacy protections — but it can *request* the necessary 
>> permissions and use clever methods to gather system information. Let’s 
>> break down how it likely works:
>>
>> 1. **Full Disk Access (FDA):**
>>     EtreCheck guides users to grant it **Full Disk Access** — a 
>> powerful permission that lets it bypass many of the privacy barriers 
>> protecting locations like `~/Documents`, `~/Downloads`, iCloud Drive, 
>> and Time Machine backups. Once FDA is enabled, EtreCheck can gather 
>> detailed information about your disk, logs, and system configuration 
>> without constant consent prompts.
>>
>> 2. **Attribution Chain and Helper Tools:**
>>     EtreCheck may use helper tools or command-line utilities (like 
>> `kextstat`, `ps`, or `tccutil`) to gather data. These tools run under 
>> the main app’s permissions, so if the app has FDA, its subprocesses 
>> inherit those privileges through the attribution chain. This lets 
>> EtreCheck access data indirectly — like running shell commands to 
>> inspect running processes or kernel extensions.
>>
>> 3. **Entitlements and Info.plist:**
>>     EtreCheck might include specific **entitlements** baked into its 
>> app signature, allowing it to request camera/microphone access or 
>> inspect protected folders. The Info.plist likely contains the required 
>> consent dialog text, so macOS knows what to show users when requesting 
>> permissions.
>>
>> 4. **Terminal and Scripting:**
>>     If you manually run EtreCheck or any of its tools from Terminal 
>> (especially if Terminal has FDA), it gains even more power, as 
>> Terminal itself acts as the "parent app" in the attribution chain.
>>
>> 5. **Transparency to Users:**
>>     EtreCheck emphasizes that it’s "safe" by highlighting its read- 
>> only nature and the lack of network access — but once you’ve granted 
>> it FDA, it can access vast amounts of data. It doesn’t technically 
>> "bypass" protections — it just uses the permissions you give it.
>>
>> Would you like to dig into how we can check what permissions EtreCheck 
>> has on your system, or perhaps run a `tccutil` command to reset them? 
>> Let me know how deep you want to go!
>>
>> =
>>
>> No, I'm not running EtreCheck on this iMac - I erased my hard drive to 
>> eradicate it. I don't trust a Developer who will not communicate with me!
>>
>> =
>>
>> ChatGPT said:
>>
>> That makes perfect sense — trust is key, especially when it comes to 
>> apps with deep system access like EtreCheck. Let me know if you want 
>> to dive into other ways to monitor or lock down system privacy and 
>> permissions on your iMac!
> 
> 
> Views welcomed!


Not everyone seems to like Howard's efforts to help us!

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256004656?sortBy=rank

Your thoughts, please.

-- 
David

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

#180654

On 12/03/2025 12:40, David wrote:
> On 12/03/2025 10:00, David wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 08:51, David wrote:
>>
>>> https://eclecticlight.co/2025/03/12/why-all-this-privacy-protection- 
>>> an- overview/
>>>
>>> //When you run an app, it naturally runs with your full user’s 
>>> privileges, and has access to everything according to the permissions 
>>> set on folders and files. Just as you want your privileges to give 
>>> the Finder and your mail client access to all your emails and their 
>>> enclosures, all other apps that you run enjoy those same privileges. 
>>> But would you also want a third-party note-taking or photo-editing 
>>> app to have that same level of access, even without your knowledge? 
>>> Similarly, while you want FaceTime to have access to your Mac’s 
>>> camera and microphone, would you be happy for any other app to access 
>>> them without your being asked?//
>>>
>>> ChatGPT says ....
>>>
>>> Howard Oakley's article gives a solid rundown of how macOS has 
>>> evolved its privacy protection — it’s no longer just about file 
>>> permissions but about controlling app access to sensitive data and 
>>> devices. Interesting to see how macOS 15 Sequoia now re-prompts users 
>>> about screen recording permissions.
>>>
>>> The focus on consent (like giving apps access to your camera or mic) 
>>> versus intent (like choosing to save a file in Documents) is a smart 
>>> way to break down how Apple handles privacy. And that attribution 
>>> chain concept — tracing what app requested access, especially for 
>>> command-line tools — makes sense, though it must be a headache for 
>>> devs trying to get everything right.
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> I asked - "Can you see how EtreCheck can get around all this 
>>> protection?"
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> EtreCheck, like any other macOS app, can’t technically "get around" 
>>> these privacy protections — but it can *request* the necessary 
>>> permissions and use clever methods to gather system information. 
>>> Let’s break down how it likely works:
>>>
>>> 1. **Full Disk Access (FDA):**
>>>     EtreCheck guides users to grant it **Full Disk Access** — a 
>>> powerful permission that lets it bypass many of the privacy barriers 
>>> protecting locations like `~/Documents`, `~/Downloads`, iCloud Drive, 
>>> and Time Machine backups. Once FDA is enabled, EtreCheck can gather 
>>> detailed information about your disk, logs, and system configuration 
>>> without constant consent prompts.
>>>
>>> 2. **Attribution Chain and Helper Tools:**
>>>     EtreCheck may use helper tools or command-line utilities (like 
>>> `kextstat`, `ps`, or `tccutil`) to gather data. These tools run under 
>>> the main app’s permissions, so if the app has FDA, its subprocesses 
>>> inherit those privileges through the attribution chain. This lets 
>>> EtreCheck access data indirectly — like running shell commands to 
>>> inspect running processes or kernel extensions.
>>>
>>> 3. **Entitlements and Info.plist:**
>>>     EtreCheck might include specific **entitlements** baked into its 
>>> app signature, allowing it to request camera/microphone access or 
>>> inspect protected folders. The Info.plist likely contains the 
>>> required consent dialog text, so macOS knows what to show users when 
>>> requesting permissions.
>>>
>>> 4. **Terminal and Scripting:**
>>>     If you manually run EtreCheck or any of its tools from Terminal 
>>> (especially if Terminal has FDA), it gains even more power, as 
>>> Terminal itself acts as the "parent app" in the attribution chain.
>>>
>>> 5. **Transparency to Users:**
>>>     EtreCheck emphasizes that it’s "safe" by highlighting its read- 
>>> only nature and the lack of network access — but once you’ve granted 
>>> it FDA, it can access vast amounts of data. It doesn’t technically 
>>> "bypass" protections — it just uses the permissions you give it.
>>>
>>> Would you like to dig into how we can check what permissions 
>>> EtreCheck has on your system, or perhaps run a `tccutil` command to 
>>> reset them? Let me know how deep you want to go!
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> No, I'm not running EtreCheck on this iMac - I erased my hard drive 
>>> to eradicate it. I don't trust a Developer who will not communicate 
>>> with me!
>>>
>>> =
>>>
>>> ChatGPT said:
>>>
>>> That makes perfect sense — trust is key, especially when it comes to 
>>> apps with deep system access like EtreCheck. Let me know if you want 
>>> to dive into other ways to monitor or lock down system privacy and 
>>> permissions on your iMac!
>>
>>
>> Views welcomed!
> 
> 
> Not everyone seems to like Howard's efforts to help us!
> 
> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256004656?sortBy=rank
> 
> Your thoughts, please.

Quite a number of posts now - NONE made by me!

Any thoughts, folks?

-- 
David

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

#180659

On 12 Mar 2025 at 20:52:19 GMT, "David" <David.is@home.today> wrote:

> On 12/03/2025 12:40, David wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 10:00, David wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2025 08:51, David wrote:
>>> 
>>>> https://eclecticlight.co/2025/03/12/why-all-this-privacy-protection-
>>>> an- overview/
>>>> 
>>>> //When you run an app, it naturally runs with your full user’s
>>>> privileges, and has access to everything according to the permissions
>>>> set on folders and files. Just as you want your privileges to give
>>>> the Finder and your mail client access to all your emails and their
>>>> enclosures, all other apps that you run enjoy those same privileges.
>>>> But would you also want a third-party note-taking or photo-editing
>>>> app to have that same level of access, even without your knowledge?
>>>> Similarly, while you want FaceTime to have access to your Mac’s
>>>> camera and microphone, would you be happy for any other app to access
>>>> them without your being asked?//
>>>> 
>>>> ChatGPT says ....
>>>> 
>>>> Howard Oakley's article gives a solid rundown of how macOS has
>>>> evolved its privacy protection — it’s no longer just about file
>>>> permissions but about controlling app access to sensitive data and
>>>> devices. Interesting to see how macOS 15 Sequoia now re-prompts users
>>>> about screen recording permissions.
>>>> 
>>>> The focus on consent (like giving apps access to your camera or mic)
>>>> versus intent (like choosing to save a file in Documents) is a smart
>>>> way to break down how Apple handles privacy. And that attribution
>>>> chain concept — tracing what app requested access, especially for
>>>> command-line tools — makes sense, though it must be a headache for
>>>> devs trying to get everything right.
>>>> 
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> I asked - "Can you see how EtreCheck can get around all this
>>>> protection?"
>>>> 
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> EtreCheck, like any other macOS app, can’t technically "get around"
>>>> these privacy protections — but it can *request* the necessary
>>>> permissions and use clever methods to gather system information.
>>>> Let’s break down how it likely works:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. **Full Disk Access (FDA):**
>>>>     EtreCheck guides users to grant it **Full Disk Access** — a
>>>> powerful permission that lets it bypass many of the privacy barriers
>>>> protecting locations like `~/Documents`, `~/Downloads`, iCloud Drive,
>>>> and Time Machine backups. Once FDA is enabled, EtreCheck can gather
>>>> detailed information about your disk, logs, and system configuration
>>>> without constant consent prompts.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. **Attribution Chain and Helper Tools:**
>>>>     EtreCheck may use helper tools or command-line utilities (like
>>>> `kextstat`, `ps`, or `tccutil`) to gather data. These tools run under
>>>> the main app’s permissions, so if the app has FDA, its subprocesses
>>>> inherit those privileges through the attribution chain. This lets
>>>> EtreCheck access data indirectly — like running shell commands to
>>>> inspect running processes or kernel extensions.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. **Entitlements and Info.plist:**
>>>>     EtreCheck might include specific **entitlements** baked into its
>>>> app signature, allowing it to request camera/microphone access or
>>>> inspect protected folders. The Info.plist likely contains the
>>>> required consent dialog text, so macOS knows what to show users when
>>>> requesting permissions.
>>>> 
>>>> 4. **Terminal and Scripting:**
>>>>     If you manually run EtreCheck or any of its tools from Terminal
>>>> (especially if Terminal has FDA), it gains even more power, as
>>>> Terminal itself acts as the "parent app" in the attribution chain.
>>>> 
>>>> 5. **Transparency to Users:**
>>>>     EtreCheck emphasizes that it’s "safe" by highlighting its read-
>>>> only nature and the lack of network access — but once you’ve granted
>>>> it FDA, it can access vast amounts of data. It doesn’t technically
>>>> "bypass" protections — it just uses the permissions you give it.
>>>> 
>>>> Would you like to dig into how we can check what permissions
>>>> EtreCheck has on your system, or perhaps run a `tccutil` command to
>>>> reset them? Let me know how deep you want to go!
>>>> 
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> No, I'm not running EtreCheck on this iMac - I erased my hard drive
>>>> to eradicate it. I don't trust a Developer who will not communicate
>>>> with me!
>>>> 
>>>> =
>>>> 
>>>> ChatGPT said:
>>>> 
>>>> That makes perfect sense — trust is key, especially when it comes to
>>>> apps with deep system access like EtreCheck. Let me know if you want
>>>> to dive into other ways to monitor or lock down system privacy and
>>>> permissions on your iMac!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Views welcomed!
>> 
>> 
>> Not everyone seems to like Howard's efforts to help us!
>> 
>> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256004656?sortBy=rank
>> 
>> Your thoughts, please.
> 
> Quite a number of posts now - NONE made by me!
> 
> Any thoughts, folks?

Yes - you can get paranoiac about privacy. I have bookmarked the article but
prefer not to fiddle. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Old John.
-- 
An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

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

#180663

On 13/03/2025 12:00, John Hill wrote:
[....]
> Yes - you can get paranoiac about privacy. I have bookmarked the article but
> prefer not to fiddle. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've never been worried about privacy. It is about *security* that I 
have my concerns.

In case you've not looked, this is what John Daniel ('etresoft') has 
recently posted in that thread:-

etresoft

User level: Level 9
53,112 points
Mar 13, 2025 12:47 PM in response to g_wolfman

What do any of us know really? The only thing that anyone knows for 
certain about this thread is that it is of great interest to a certain 
notorious cyberstalker. You might not know his name (he has dozens of 
aliases), but he certainly knows yours. Stalker claims that he isn't 
"kpavel", just his "real-life chum".

Do we take Stalker at his word? Truth and lie are irrelevant to him. 
Statements are either effective stalking and harassment strategies or 
they are not. That's all that matters. Software update, social media 
influencers, older people - they are all just tools of harassment. You 
can only assist in his decade-long harassment campaign, or become a new 
target.

==

The original thread starter, Pavel (Paul) is a Ukrainian who is employed 
by AgeUK. He visits Seachange here in Budleigh each Wednesday morning to 
provide free help and advice to the old folk in the surrounding area. 
I've known him for some months now. He was a solicitor in Kiev (Kyiv) 
but has come here with his wife and three children to escape the war.
His brother is still there and fighting at the front-line for both of them.

https://www.seachangedevon.org/

-- 
Any question, just ask.
David

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

#180664

On 13/03/2025 15:00, David wrote:
> On 13/03/2025 12:00, John Hill wrote:
> [....]
>> Yes - you can get paranoiac about privacy. I have bookmarked the 
>> article but
>> prefer not to fiddle. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256004656?sortBy=rank

> I've never been worried about privacy. It is about *security* that I 
> have my concerns.
> 
> In case you've not looked, this is what John Daniel ('etresoft') has 
> recently posted in that thread:-
> 
> etresoft
> 
> User level: Level 9
> 53,112 points
> Mar 13, 2025 12:47 PM in response to g_wolfman
> 
> What do any of us know really? The only thing that anyone knows for 
> certain about this thread is that it is of great interest to a certain 
> notorious cyberstalker. You might not know his name (he has dozens of 
> aliases), but he certainly knows yours. Stalker claims that he isn't 
> "kpavel", just his "real-life chum".
> 
> Do we take Stalker at his word? Truth and lie are irrelevant to him. 
> Statements are either effective stalking and harassment strategies or 
> they are not. That's all that matters. Software update, social media 
> influencers, older people - they are all just tools of harassment. You 
> can only assist in his decade-long harassment campaign, or become a new 
> target.
> 
> ==
> 
> The original thread starter, Pavel (Paul) is a Ukrainian who is employed 
> by AgeUK. He visits Seachange here in Budleigh each Wednesday morning to 
> provide free help and advice to the old folk in the surrounding area. 
> I've known him for some months now. He was a solicitor in Kiev (Kyiv) 
> but has come here with his wife and three children to escape the war.
> His brother is still there and fighting at the front-line for both of them.
> 
> https://www.seachangedevon.org/

To keep folk up-to-date!

The truth *WILL* out!

-- 
David

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

#180707

On 12/03/2025 10:00, David now provides an update!

https://eclecticlight.co/2025/03/19/what-happened-to-macos-in-last-weeks-updates/#like-85512

Someone please tell John Daniel (etresoft> if he isn't already reading here!

Thanks.

-- 
David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web