Groups > misc.phone.mobile.iphone > #90357

Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups	misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android
Subject	Re: Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?
Date	2016-08-14 23:32 +0000
Organization	People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Message-ID	<e1cdc0Fo020U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <noolos$10oc$2@gioia.aioe.org> <e1bpnaFink7U1@mid.individual.net> <140820161409544299%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e1bqvfFink7U4@mid.individual.net> <noqr1o$4i6$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2016-08-14, Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2016 18:18:23 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Right, there are *many* different ways to identify someone over a
>> network connection that have absolutely *nothing* to do with an
>> advertising ID. 
>
> This is one of the rare times where you have said something that is
> true.

Projection - you routinely lie and insult people in the Apple news
groups.

>> He seems to be fixated on the advertising ID because there is a nifty
>> GUI widget that lets you hide it in Android.
>
> Have you never read a single thread in this newsgroup?
>
> One by one, I identify, learn about, and then resolve each possible
> exploit that is possible to resolve.

Actually, what you do is ignorantly *claim* you have learned about
things while simultaneously proving by your own words you haven't
learned a thing; then when people who know better confront you about
that, you turn around and insult them and lie about them. You're a
pitiful transparent troll, and the only person you are fooling is
yourself, which seems appropriate.

> It just so happens that the Android ApID is trivial to resolve

You have proven no such thing; all you have proven is you have hidden it
from the user interface, without offering a shred of evidence that the
ID is absent from the device, nor any evidence that the ID is no longer
transmitted over the network. Such naive assumptions only make you look
like a fool.

>> And he seems to naively believe hiding it magically equates to
>> *complete* removal from the device - without even bothering to check
>> to see if that is true. 
>
> It's gone.

You haven't backed that assertion up with a single shred of proof. Until
such time your assertion is assumed to be neither true or false, but
just plain bullshit.

> The onus is on you, not me, to prove something that doesn't exist, to
> exist.

Nope. You're apparently not very familiar with sound logic. Since *you*
made the claim the ID is gone, and it is *your* job to prove that is the
case. Until then, I call bullshit.

>> He also hasn't bothered to check to see if the ID is being
>> transmitted over the network. 
>
> It's not even *generated*. 

You haven't proven that.

> It's gone.

Nor have you proven that. 

>> Chances are the ID is still on the device and is still being
>> transmitted, unbeknownst to him.
>
> It's impossible.

Nonsense. The ID can easily be stored somewhere on the device, and the
ID can easily be transmitted over the network from the device.

-- 
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

Thread

csiph-web