Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
confused

Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus

https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/

------------------------------------------------------

Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
brought up this gem...

"The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
them on whether they really understood how privacy options
worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
data."

Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
research behind it.

BUT, it carries on...

"While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
settings could be hard to navigate."

15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!

On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>
> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> confused
>
> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/

The study says no such thing.

Alan wrote:

> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
> >
> > Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> > confused
> >
> > Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
> >
> >
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>
> The study says no such thing.

I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
newsgroup" bit!

Blueshirt wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>
> > On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
> > >
> > > Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> > > confused
> > >
> > > Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
> > >
> > >
>
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
> >
> > The study says no such thing.
>
> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
> newsgroup" bit!

My actual problem was the "academic survey" of just 15 people!

On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>
>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>> confused
>>>
>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>
>>>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>
>> The study says no such thing.
>
> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
> newsgroup" bit!

But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?

On 2024-04-06 13:25, Blueshirt wrote:
> Blueshirt wrote:
>
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>>> confused
>>>>
>>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>>
>>> The study says no such thing.
>>
>> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
>> newsgroup" bit!
>
> My actual problem was the "academic survey" of just 15 people!

Then perhaps you should learn to convey your meaning more clearly.

What you chose to lead with shapes the way people will read the rest of
what you wrote.

Alan wrote:

> On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> > > > confused
> > > >
> > > > Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
> > > >
> >
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
> > >
> > > The study says no such thing.
> >
> > I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
> > newsgroup" bit!
>
> But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?

Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
commenting.

My comment was under the line...

It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!

The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)

On 2024-04-06 16:10:53 +0000, Blueshirt said:
>
> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> confused
>
> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
> brought up this gem...
>
> "The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
> them on whether they really understood how privacy options
> worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
> data."
>
> Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
> a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
> research behind it.
>
> BUT, it carries on...
>
> "While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
> respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
> settings could be hard to navigate."
>
> 15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
> your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
> phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
> of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!

Almost no surveys ever have a useful number of respondents, and always
use statistical manipulation and misleading wording to make fools
believe the results are meangful for "everyone". Add to that they they
also usually have intentionally directional questions, drop any
respndents that do not fit their requirements (i.e. whatever result the
person paying for the survey wants), and that some respondents simply
lie (intentionally or unintentionally), and you'll find that almost all
surveys are completely useless for anything in reality ... and in the
case of the reporting of medical studies, it can be extremely dangerous
- some people have died due to following the results of such studies
reported by the news media.

On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>>>> confused
>>>>>
>>>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>>>
>>>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>>>
>>>> The study says no such thing.
>>>
>>> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
>>> newsgroup" bit!
>>
>> But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
>
> Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
> misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
> commenting.

And that meant you CHOSE to do that.

>
> My comment was under the line...
>
> It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
> of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
>
> The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
> the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)

But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to make.

How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any importance?

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>>>>
>>>>> The study says no such thing.
>>>>
>>>> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
>>>> newsgroup" bit!
>>>
>>> But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
>>
>> Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
>> misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
>> commenting.
>
> And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
>
>>
>> My comment was under the line...
>>
>> It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
>> of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
>>
>> The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
>> the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)
>
> But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to make.
>
> How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any importance?
>
>

Defending apple is the only thing of importance. It is the sole reason for
this newsgroup, as well as you very own life.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-06 16:10:53 +0000, Blueshirt said:
>>
>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>> confused
>>
>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
>> brought up this gem...
>>
>> "The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
>> them on whether they really understood how privacy options
>> worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
>> data."
>>
>> Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
>> a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
>> research behind it.
>>
>> BUT, it carries on...
>>
>> "While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
>> respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
>> settings could be hard to navigate."
>>
>> 15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
>> your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
>> phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
>> of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
>> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
>
> Almost no surveys ever have a useful number of respondents, and always
> use statistical manipulation and misleading wording to make fools
> believe the results are meangful for "everyone". Add to that they they
> also usually have intentionally directional questions, drop any
> respndents that do not fit their requirements (i.e. whatever result the
> person paying for the survey wants), and that some respondents simply
> lie (intentionally or unintentionally), and you'll find that almost all
> surveys are completely useless for anything in reality ... and in the
> case of the reporting of medical studies, it can be extremely dangerous
> - some people have died due to following the results of such studies
> reported by the news media.
>
>
>
>

Has Apple ever done anything which you disapprove of? You’re worse than
nospam ever was!

badgolferman wrote:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-04-06 16:10:53 +0000, Blueshirt said:
>>>
>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>> confused
>>>
>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
>>> brought up this gem...
>>>
>>> "The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
>>> them on whether they really understood how privacy options
>>> worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
>>> data."
>>>
>>> Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
>>> a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
>>> research behind it.
>>>
>>> BUT, it carries on...
>>>
>>> "While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
>>> respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
>>> settings could be hard to navigate."
>>>
>>> 15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
>>> your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
>>> phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
>>> of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
>>> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
>>
>> Almost no surveys ever have a useful number of respondents, and always
>> use statistical manipulation and misleading wording to make fools
>> believe the results are meangful for "everyone". Add to that they they
>> also usually have intentionally directional questions, drop any
>> respndents that do not fit their requirements (i.e. whatever result the
>> person paying for the survey wants), and that some respondents simply
>> lie (intentionally or unintentionally), and you'll find that almost all
>> surveys are completely useless for anything in reality ... and in the
>> case of the reporting of medical studies, it can be extremely dangerous
>> - some people have died due to following the results of such studies
>> reported by the news media.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Has Apple ever done anything which you disapprove of? You’re worse than
> nospam ever was!
>

Why, even thinking such a thing is 100% blasphemy !

Shame on you.

On 2024-04-06 19:45, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-06 13:23, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-04-06 12:10, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The study says no such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said it did. Hence the "copied this post from another
>>>>> newsgroup" bit!
>>>>
>>>> But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
>>>
>>> Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
>>> misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
>>> commenting.
>>
>> And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
>>
>>>
>>> My comment was under the line...
>>>
>>> It was fairly easy to understand the point I was making... but
>>> of course, some people see Usenet as a battleground!
>>>
>>> The comment you are objecting to is actually the sub-heading of
>>> the article btw. (Which I didn't write!)
>>
>> But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to make.
>>
>> How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any importance?
>>
>>
>
> Defending apple is the only thing of importance. It is the sole reason
> for this newsgroup, as well as you very own life.
>
>

Hardly.

Am 06.04.24 um 18:10 schrieb Blueshirt:
>
> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> confused
>
> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
> brought up this gem...
>
> "The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
> them on whether they really understood how privacy options
> worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
> data."
>
> Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
> a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
> research behind it.
>
> BUT, it carries on...
>
> "While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
> respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
> settings could be hard to navigate."
>
> 15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
> your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
> phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
> of just fifteen people? Has journalism really become this bad?
> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!

In this case: Why are you bringing up this piece of non-information?

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>
> Academics probe Apple's privacy settings and get lost and
> confused
>
> Just disabling Siri requires visits to five submenus
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/05/apple_apps_privacy_study/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Copied this post from another newsgroup as reading the article
> brought up this gem...
>
> "The authors also conducted a survey of Apple users and quizzed
> them on whether they really understood how privacy options
> worked on iOS and macOS, and what apps were doing with their
> data."
>
> Which all sounds fine. After all, a survey of Apple users seems
> a fair way to conduct investigation... every study needs some
> research behind it.
>
> BUT, it carries on...
>
> "While the survey was very small – it covered just 15
> respondents – the results indicated that Apple's privacy
> settings could be hard to navigate."
>
> 15 users! 15?! That's like conducting a survey among members of
> your own family. How can anyone write a serious article on a
> phone that has over a billion users worldwide based on a survey
> of just fifteen people?

For a detailed study like this - 60-90 minute interviews with each
participant - it is unrealistic to have hundreds/thousands of participants.
The authors say the numbers are small themselves and don't make any
grandiose claims. It is interesting nonetheless.

> Has journalism really become this bad?
> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!

This is the bigger question. Why did elreg feel the need to push this
small, qualitative study?

Alan wrote:

> On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> > >
> > > But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
> >
> > Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
> > misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
> > commenting.
>
> And that meant you CHOSE to do that.

Well, I thought by saying "I copied this post" at the start
would have been plain enough.

> But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to
> make.

No, I copied THE... WHOLE... POST... for simplicity. What part
of that do you not understand?

> How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any
> importance?

I'm sorry, if I had known English wasn't your first language and
you was a bit slow I would have spelled it out in more simpler
terms.

Somebody with better comprehension would have understood the
point I was making was about the academic survey of just 15
people. Nothing more!

I don't do agendas.

My apologies. I will try better next time.

Chris wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> >
> > Has journalism really become this bad?
> > Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
>
> This is the bigger question. Why did elreg feel the need to
> push this small, qualitative study?

THAT, was the point I was making. What was the point of that
article? It means nothing.

A survey taken in this newsgroup would have been just as
representative... if not more so, as there's more than 15 people
here.

Blueshirt wrote:

>Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
>> > Alan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
>> >
>> > Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
>> > misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
>> > commenting.
>>
>> And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
>
>Well, I thought by saying "I copied this post" at the start
>would have been plain enough.
>
>> But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to
>> make.
>
>No, I copied THE... WHOLE... POST... for simplicity. What part
>of that do you not understand?
>
>> How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any
>> importance?
>
>I'm sorry, if I had known English wasn't your first language and
>you was a bit slow I would have spelled it out in more simpler
>terms.
>
>Somebody with better comprehension would have understood the
>point I was making was about the academic survey of just 15
>people. Nothing more!
>
>I don't do agendas.
>
>My apologies. I will try better next time.

Alan just likes to argue about anything. I fully understood your
original post.

On 2024-04-07 13:51, Blueshirt wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-06 14:22, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?
>>>
>>> Nope, I copied the whole post, (from
>>> misc.news.internet.discuss), then added a break line before
>>> commenting.
>>
>> And that meant you CHOSE to do that.
>
> Well, I thought by saying "I copied this post" at the start
> would have been plain enough.

Let's see if this is plain enough.

I said:

"But you chose what to include and what to exclude, right?"

And you replied:

"Nope"

That's correct, isn't it?

>
>> But which you included above the points that YOU wanted to
>> make.
>
> No, I copied THE... WHOLE... POST... for simplicity. What part
> of that do you not understand?
>

How can I possibly know how much of the post you copied.

You put that post's text (assuming I believe it even exists, this other
post).

>> How am I to decide that you didn't mean that to be of any
>> importance?
>
> I'm sorry, if I had known English wasn't your first language and
> you was a bit slow I would have spelled it out in more simpler
> terms.

When you make an argument, you START by stating your position.

But putting the other post's text first, you made it look like that was
the most salient point you were making.

>
> Somebody with better comprehension would have understood the
> point I was making was about the academic survey of just 15
> people. Nothing more!
>
> I don't do agendas.
>
> My apologies. I will try better next time.
>

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>
>>> Has journalism really become this bad?
>>> Or does "The Register" need the 'clicks' that badly?!
>>
>> This is the bigger question. Why did elreg feel the need to
>> push this small, qualitative study?
>
> THAT, was the point I was making. What was the point of that
> article? It means nothing.

Disagree. It doesn't mean nothing. Neither is it newsworthy.

> A survey taken in this newsgroup would have been just as
> representative... if not more so, as there's more than 15 people
> here.

Would you be prepared to spend 60-90 minutes with each participant?