Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #181561 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-05 12:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-08-14 15:27 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 91 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac
Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-05 12:38 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-06 00:06 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-06 05:58 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 11:19 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-08 12:55 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 15:39 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-08 17:21 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 19:13 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-08 12:29 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 21:40 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 21:58 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-08 21:30 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-08 23:01 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-09 14:05 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 18:54 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-09 21:09 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 22:47 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 20:06 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 09:50 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-09 09:15 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 18:58 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-09 13:15 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 22:49 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-09 15:38 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 09:46 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-10 12:41 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 20:09 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-13 12:32 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 21:58 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 22:12 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-13 14:54 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-11 19:08 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2025-08-10 09:07 -0400
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-10 12:41 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-08-08 22:07 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 15:37 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 22:57 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-09 01:22 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 13:56 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-09 01:22 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 04:48 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 09:44 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-11 19:08 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-09 01:22 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-09 01:22 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 10:01 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Creon <creon@creon.earth> - 2025-08-09 09:48 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 12:13 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Charlie Glock <charlieglock@localhost.com> - 2025-08-09 22:05 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-09 23:20 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 20:07 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 22:45 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-13 14:55 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Kelly Phillips <KFile@podcasts.org> - 2025-08-13 20:09 -0500
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-14 08:58 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Kelly Phillips <KFile@podcasts.org> - 2025-08-14 17:23 -0500
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-08-14 14:58 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-24 08:31 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Kelly Phillips <KFile@podcasts.org> - 2025-08-24 17:55 -0500
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-25 08:28 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-08-25 07:02 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-25 17:46 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Kelly Phillips <KFile@podcasts.org> - 2025-08-25 10:19 -0500
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-08-25 17:44 +0200
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-25 17:43 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-25 22:24 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 22:59 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-26 10:50 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 13:29 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <DavidB.@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-26 15:19 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 15:30 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:46 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 15:47 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-08-26 18:02 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <DavidB.@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-26 21:07 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-08-26 07:31 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 13:24 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <DavidB.@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-26 15:16 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <DavidB.@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-26 16:22 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Creon <creon@creon.earth> - 2025-08-26 21:21 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow "David B." <DavidB.@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-26 22:24 +0100
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-31 21:03 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 22:14 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 14:34 -0700
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-08-31 21:03 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow T i m <eternal@spaced.me.uk> - 2025-08-14 15:27 +0100
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-05 12:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow |
| Message-ID | <mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net> |
Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow hoakley April 14, 2021 Macs, Technology May 30, 2025 https://eclecticlight.co/2021/04/14/optimising-performance-with-etrecheckpro-and-ulbow/ //You’re probably familiar with EtreCheck, the free app which is commonly used in Apple Community Support forums to help diagnose problems, but have you paid for its Pro features? If you want to get the best performance from your Mac, that’s money well-spent. Among the additional features which are enabled when you make the in-app purchase is a superb graphical view of recently collected analytics data. Select the Performance item at the left (only enabled in the Pro version), scroll down until you reach the Analytics section, and click on the button to show the analytics chart.// = Howard Oakley was speaking above about an "in-App" purchase; that was at a time when EtreCheck had been vetted by Apple and was available from the Apple App Store. That, of course, is no longer the case. Does anyone reading here actually *USE* the EtreCheck software and enjoy interaction with the developer? = There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254105983?sortBy=rank = Your thoughts requested, folks! 🙂 -- Does it leave a 'back door' open on your Mac? Indeed, who would know? Who has checked?!!! https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/etrecheckpro-process-redacted.2291964/?post=29887128#post-29887128
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyrone <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SvydnXxV9JoNAQ_1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #181561 |
On Aug 5, 2025 at 7:38:45 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Does anyone reading here actually *USE* the EtreCheck software and enjoy > interaction with the developer? Yes, we all use it and it works fine. We all have very nice relationships with him. > There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! Only from you. Therefore it does not count. > Your thoughts requested, folks! 🙂 As always, my thoughts are that you are insane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-06 05:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB333140E41503HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| In reply to | #181561 |
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. > Your thoughts requested, folks! I'm looking forward to reading those thoughts, David. <G> -- I don't need no Dr. All I need...is my lawyer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 11:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181569 |
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: > "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue, > 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > >> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! > > This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. > You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case > because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly > dishonestly, sliming the product. Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? Please explain HOW you know this. Have you TESTED a Mac - for real? >> Your thoughts requested, folks! > > I'm looking forward to reading those thoughts, David. <G> Nobody cares. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyrone <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mJKcnUJ0SKpcbgj1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #181580 |
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:19:58 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue, >> 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >> >>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >> >> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. >> You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case >> because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly >> dishonestly, sliming the product. > > Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck > "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? Perhaps YOU will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one *HAS* left an open backdoor? You have NO PROOF of your absurd claims about this *highly recommended* troubleshooting tool. But you continue to stalk/harasss/libel/slander this product and its author.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 15:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfmghfFstq7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181581 |
On 08/08/2025 13:55, Tyrone wrote: > On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:19:58 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue, >>> 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>> >>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>> >>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. >>> You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case >>> because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly >>> dishonestly, sliming the product. >> >> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? > > Perhaps YOU will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck > "Full Disk Access" one *HAS* left an open backdoor? > > You have NO PROOF of your absurd claims about this *highly recommended* > troubleshooting tool. But you continue to stalk/harasss/libel/slander this > product and its author. Tyrone Let’s dial things back a bit! I’ve raised legitimate technical concerns about the permissions EtreCheck requires, especially Full Disk Access. It’s standard practice to be cautious about granting such extensive access to any third-party tool — especially one that sends data online and whose author refuses to engage with paying users. Asking whether Full Disk Access might leave a system vulnerable is entirely reasonable. It’s not an accusation — it’s a question. If the software is safe and well-designed, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny without personal attacks, dismissals, or accusations of “libel.” I note you didn’t answer the question, just deflected with indignation. So, again, I ask:- Once EtreCheck has Full Disk Access, what technical protections are in place to prevent misuse — deliberate or accidental? If you can answer that constructively, I’m listening. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB33587CEE98DBHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| In reply to | #181580 |
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >> >>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >> >> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. > > Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck > "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make against the software. Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. -- I don't need no Dr. All I need...is my lawyer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 19:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfmt1uF87vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181583 |
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote: > "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, > 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > >> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>> >>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>> >>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. >> >> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? > > This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times > why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software > companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced > around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author > won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer > for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make > against the software. > > Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"? Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1075j7c$rso5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181585 |
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote: > On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote: >> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >> >>> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>> >>>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>>> >>>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. >>> >>> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? >> >> This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times >> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced >> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the >> author >> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >> answer >> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make >> against the software. >> >> Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. > > What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"? > > Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!! > Has anyone investigated you? Oh wait! They have! And they've found you to be a complete asshole!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfn5lnF1jm9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181586 |
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote: > On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote: >> On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote: >>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>>>> >>>>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given >>>> EtreCheck >>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? >>> >>> This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>> times >>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>> danced >>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the >>> author >>> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>> answer >>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make >>> against the software. >>> >>> Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. >> >> What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"? >> >> Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!! >> > > Has anyone investigated you? > > Oh wait! They have! THAT isn't difficult! *MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years. Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified. Thanks. -- David B. https://discussions.apple.com/profile/HunterBD/participation https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8331613?answerId=33198885022&sortBy=rank#33198885022
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1075o0u$rso5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181587 |
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote: > On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote: >>> On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote: >>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net >>>> Fri, >>>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>>>>> >>>>>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>> that's >>>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>> once >>>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given >>>>> EtreCheck >>>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? >>>> >>>> This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>>> times >>>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>>> danced >>>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because >>>> the author >>>> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>>> answer >>>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to >>>> make >>>> against the software. >>>> >>>> Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. >>> >>> What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"? >>> >>> Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!! >>> >> >> Has anyone investigated you? >> >> Oh wait! They have! > > THAT isn't difficult! > > *MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years. > > Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/ > Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png > > Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 21:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfn6ocF1jm9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181588 |
On 08/08/2025 21:51, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
>> On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net
>>>>> Fri,
>>>>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
>>>>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
>>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
>>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are
>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
>>>>>> EtreCheck
>>>>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
>>>>>
>>>>> This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
>>>>> times
>>>>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
>>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
>>>>> danced
>>>>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
>>>>> the author
>>>>> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
>>>>> answer
>>>>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to
>>>>> make
>>>>> against the software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
>>>>
>>>> What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
>>>>
>>>> Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has anyone investigated you?
>>>
>>> Oh wait! They have!
>>
>> THAT isn't difficult!
>>
>> *MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
>>
>> Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
>>
>> Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
> I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose to
respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
I have been entirely open about who I am and what I’ve done.
I’m asking a straightforward question about John Daniel’s professional
history and the transparency of EtreCheck — because transparency builds
trust, and the lack of it erodes it.
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends,
despite requiring Full Disk Access,
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same
question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyrone <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ifycndxhdbsQ8Qv1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #181590 |
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfnae0F1jm9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181591 |
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: > On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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. Could you please clarify who these people are — whether they are independent security experts, privacy advocates, or reputable organizations? Also, WHY have they investigated EtreCheck? For example, was it due to user concerns, audits, or security reviews? Having this information would really help build confidence for cautious users like me. I appreciate your help and any details you can provide. Best regards, David B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyrone <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0vycnWMgC6A0yAr1nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #181592 |
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfpgbhFdjj5U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181612 |
On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: > On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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. If “lots of people” have audited EtreCheck, then please name those people, link to their findings, and make their methodology public so others can confirm. Without independent, transparent sources, saying “everyone recommends it” is just an appeal to popularity — it’s not the same as a technical audit. That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the question far better than personal assumptions about my motives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tyrone <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zeKcnXKps7ZtJQr1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #181615 |
On Aug 9, 2025 at 1:54:57 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: >> On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfpu0dFf8ukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181618 |
On 09/08/2025 22:09, Tyrone wrote: > On Aug 9, 2025 at 1:54:57 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: >>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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*?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mg462dF6tekU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #181619 |
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."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: >>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> >>>>>> 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*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1075t30$vdme$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #181590 |
On 2025-08-08 13:58, David B. wrote: > On 08/08/2025 21:51, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote: >>> On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote: >>>>> On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote: >>>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> >>>>>> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >>>>>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote: >>>>>>>> "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You >>>>>>>> are once >>>>>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given >>>>>>> EtreCheck >>>>>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor? >>>>>> >>>>>> This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you >>>>>> several times >>>>>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other >>>>>> software >>>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>>>>> danced >>>>>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because >>>>>> the author >>>>>> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a >>>>>> satisifactory answer >>>>>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue >>>>>> to make >>>>>> against the software. >>>>>> >>>>>> Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it. >>>>> >>>>> What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"? >>>>> >>>>> Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Has anyone investigated you? >>>> >>>> Oh wait! They have! >>> >>> THAT isn't difficult! >>> >>> *MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years. >>> >>> Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/ >>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>> >>> Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified. > >> I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. > > That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my point: > when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose to > respond with personal abuse instead of facts. I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a fair and reasonable person. You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac
csiph-web