See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>
>Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.

Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >
> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>
> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>
> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.

I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.

Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.

Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.

If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >
>> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>>
>> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>>
>> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>
>I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>
>Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>
>Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>
>If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.

Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
now? (no offence intended).

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
(whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
all times.

--
Joe

On 29-Jan-24 15:39, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>
> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
> all times.
>
Reminds me of Amazon's response, if you suggest that Alexa devices might
be listening to your conversations.

"Oh no! It only listens when you say 'Alexa' (or which ever wake up
word you use)" - glossing over how it can achieve that feat.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:39:11 +1100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>
> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
> all times.

Mindless paranoia.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:30:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> >
> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
> >>
> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now..
> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
> >>
> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
> >
> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
> >
> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
> >
> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
> >
> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
> now? (no offence intended).

Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:39:20 AM UTC+11, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
>
> > See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> > https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
> all times.

It may be the safest option, but it is unrealistic. Spying on people costs time and money, and unless you have access to secrets that might be worth money to other people, you won't be spied on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Well, there is always a fine line between being helpful and spying. It also
depends what is done with data. Far worse is Google Chrome and google pixel
phones.

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> wrote in message
news:20240129153911.09023578@jrenewsid.jretrading.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>
> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
> all times.
>
> --
> Joe
>

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >>
>> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >
>> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >
>> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >
>> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >
>> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> now? (no offence intended).
>
>Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.

I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:

1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
and listen in on your calls.

2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!

You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
think I can guess.

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
> >> >
> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
> >> >
> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
> >> >
> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
> >> >
> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
> >>
> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
> >> now? (no offence intended).
> >
> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>
> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:

Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,

> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
> and listen in on your calls.
>
> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!

You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy.. It hasn't.
> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
> think I can guess.

Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >> >
>> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >> >
>> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >> >
>> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> >>
>> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> >> now? (no offence intended).
>> >
>> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>>
>> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>
>Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>
>> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>> and listen in on your calls.
>>
>> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>
>You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>
>> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>> think I can guess.
>
>Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.

There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
which is what they've been claiming up til now.

On 30/01/2024 04:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:39:20 AM UTC+11, Joe wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
>> Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
>> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
>> all times.
>
> It may be the safest option, but it is unrealistic.

It's completely realistic, and is what is happening all the time. It's
how Google makes it's money, and as has been stated many times before,
*YOU* are the product.

> Spying on people costs time and money, and unless you have access to secrets that might be worth money to other people, you won't be spied on.

"Won't be spied on"?! How little you understand. It's nothing to do with
secrets (although if you have those they are fair game as well). It's
all to do with selling something to you which you didn't know you
needed. And, of course, it helps if the advert is personalised to you -
if you have a Google account, for example, you have the option of
getting personalised adverts or nonpersonalised adverts. Note that you
can't switch adverts off, though - you'll get one or the other.

You *are* being monitored all the time if you have a cellphone. At the
very least if it's switched on your position can be located by
triangulation from cell towers. That's not very accurate so, unless you
switch off all location apps and/or services (and I don't believe that's
completely possible), your position is known accurately within a metre
or so. Remember too to switch off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. If you don't,
your phone will try to link to every Wi-Fi and Bluetooth it comes
across. That includes phones of passers-by, so if your location services
are switched off, but theirs aren't, your location is known accurately
via their location.

How can that be used to advertise? Well, let's assume that your location
is monitored, and it shows that every Thursday around 11 am on your way
somewhere, you pass a Wonka Chocolate shop. Perhaps in the past you've
bought something there, or at another Wonka shop, and that will be
recorded. On the next Thursday around 1045, you will get an advert on
your phone about Wonka's latest special offer. As you pass the shop, you
might go in and buy something because of that advert. Or perhaps not.
But you might do in a couple of weeks, and that's how it works. Yes, it
costs money, as does all advertising. But it works. When did you last
*not* see an advert somewhere - in a magazine, in the street, on TV,
when browsing the internet, etc?

My Android 13 (Xiaomi MIUI 14) phone has five apps/services with with
"location":
Fused Location - com.android.location.fused
Google Location History - com.google.android.gms.location.history
Location EM2 - com.mediatek. lbs.em2.ui
LPPe Service - com.mediatek.location.lppe.main
Mtk Geofence - com.mediatek.location.mktgeofence

You can do a search on these to find out what they do, but just as an
example for the last one, see
<https://www.salesforce.com/products/marketing-cloud/best-practices/geofencing-marketing/>.
Quote:
"For marketers, the focus is on push notifications and mobile
advertisements that can be tied to a business location."

--

Jeff

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
> >> >
> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
> >>
> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
> >
> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
> >
> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
> >> and listen in on your calls.
> >>
> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
> >
> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
> >
> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
> >> think I can guess.
> >
> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>
> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
> which is what they've been claiming up til now.

If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.

As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:37:44 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 30/01/2024 04:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:39:20 AM UTC+11, Joe wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:59:32 +0000
> >> Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >>> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> I think it's safest to assume that any device containing a microphone
> >> (whether you know it or not) and communications facilities is spying at
> >> all times.
> >
> > It may be the safest option, but it is unrealistic.
>
> It's completely realistic, and is what is happening all the time. It's
> how Google makes it's money, and as has been stated many times before,
> *YOU* are the product.

All true, but That isn't "spying". It's just exploiting location data in order to provide better customer service.

There's no attempt ti extract confidential information and pass it on to third parties

> > Spying on people costs time and money, and unless you have access to secrets that might be worth money to other people, you won't be spied on.
>
> "Won't be spied on"?! How little you understand. It's nothing to do with
> secrets (although if you have those they are fair game as well). It's
> all to do with selling something to you which you didn't know you
> needed. And, of course, it helps if the advert is personalised to you -
> if you have a Google account, for example, you have the option of
> getting personalised adverts or nonpersonalised adverts. Note that you
> can't switch adverts off, though - you'll get one or the other.

But that 's just intrusive advertising. Extracting confidential information and passing it on to third parties is what actuall spies do.

> You *are* being monitored all the time if you have a cellphone. At the
> very least if it's switched on your position can be located by
> triangulation from cell towers. That's not very accurate so, unless you
> switch off all location apps and/or services (and I don't believe that's
> completely possible), your position is known accurately within a metre
> or so. Remember too to switch off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. If you don't,
> your phone will try to link to every Wi-Fi and Bluetooth it comes
> across. That includes phones of passers-by, so if your location services
> are switched off, but theirs aren't, your location is known accurately
> via their location.

My Samsung Android phone can link to a few Wi-Fi services to which I have access. My home Wi-Fi is the only one it has accessed for the past eighteen months.

It does have a GPS receiver so it does know where it is.

> How can that be used to advertise? Well, let's assume that your location
> is monitored, and it shows that every Thursday around 11 am on your way
> somewhere, you pass a Wonka Chocolate shop. Perhaps in the past you've
> bought something there, or at another Wonka shop, and that will be
> recorded. On the next Thursday around 1045, you will get an advert on
> your phone about Wonka's latest special offer. As you pass the shop, you
> might go in and buy something because of that advert. Or perhaps not.
> But you might do in a couple of weeks, and that's how it works. Yes, it
> costs money, as does all advertising. But it works. When did you last
> *not* see an advert somewhere - in a magazine, in the street, on TV,
> when browsing the internet, etc?

I don't see ads on my phone or on any of my computer screens.

I get spam e-mail from time to time and unsubscribe from whatever service is sending it.

> My Android 13 (Xiaomi MIUI 14) phone has five apps/services with with
> "location":
> Fused Location - com.android.location.fused
> Google Location History - com.google.android.gms.location.history
> Location EM2 - com.mediatek. lbs.em2.ui
> LPPe Service - com.mediatek.location.lppe.main
> Mtk Geofence - com.mediatek.location.mktgeofence

My Android 8 phone doesn't have anything from that list of apps.

> "For marketers, the focus is on push notifications and mobile advertisements that can be tied to a business location."

As a potential customer, I don't seem to be playing along.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
>> >> >
>> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>> >>
>> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>> >
>> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>> >
>> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>> >> and listen in on your calls.
>> >>
>> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>> >
>> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>> >
>> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>> >> think I can guess.
>> >
>> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>>
>> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
>> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
>> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
>> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
>> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
>> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
>
>If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.

Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.

>As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.

Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
failed to understand some of the critical aspects.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?

> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
> >> >
> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
> >> >
> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
> >> >
> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
> >> >
> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
> >> >> think I can guess.
> >> >
> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
> >>
> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
> >
> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
>
> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.

Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.

> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>
> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.

"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.

Your link to

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say

demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>
>> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>> >> >
>> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>> >> >
>> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>> >> >
>> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>> >> >> think I can guess.
>> >> >
>> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>> >>
>> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
>> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
>> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
>> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
>> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
>> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
>> >
>> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
>>
>> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
>> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
>> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
>> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
>> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.
>
>Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.
>
>> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>>
>> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
>> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
>> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
>> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.
>
>"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.
>
>Your link to
>
>https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>
>demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.

I ask again: Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I
failed to understand in your esteemed opinion?

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
> >> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
> >> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
> >> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
> >
> >> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
> >> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
> >> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
> >> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
> >> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
> >> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
> >> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
> >> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
> >> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
> >> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
> >> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
> >> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
> >> >> >> think I can guess.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
> >> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
> >> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
> >> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
> >> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
> >> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
> >> >
> >> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
> >>
> >> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
> >> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
> >> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
> >> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
> >> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.
> >
> >Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.
> >
> >> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
> >>
> >> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
> >>
> >> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
> >> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
> >> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.
> >
> >"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.
> >
> >Your link to
> >
> >https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
> >
> >demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.
>
> I ask again: Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to understand in your esteemed opinion?

Which part of "you aren't ever going to be taken seriously" did you fail to understand? Digging into your bullshit posts is a waste of time.
Mostly I can blow them out of the water with very little effort. More serious and time consuming analysis isn't justifiable. You are well known to be a twit.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>> >> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>> >> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>> >
>> >> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>> >> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>> >> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>> >> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>> >> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>> >> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>> >> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>> >> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>> >> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>> >> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>> >> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>> >> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>> >> >> >> think I can guess.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
>> >> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
>> >> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
>> >> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
>> >> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
>> >> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
>> >> >
>> >> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
>> >>
>> >> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
>> >> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
>> >> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
>> >> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
>> >> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.
>> >
>> >Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.
>> >
>> >> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>> >>
>> >> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
>> >>
>> >> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
>> >> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
>> >> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.
>> >
>> >"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.
>> >
>> >Your link to
>> >
>> >https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>> >
>> >demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.
>>
>> I ask again: Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to understand in your esteemed opinion?
>
>Which part of "you aren't ever going to be taken seriously" did you fail to understand? Digging into your bullshit posts is a waste of time.
>Mostly I can blow them out of the water with very little effort. More serious and time consuming analysis isn't justifiable. You are well known to be a twit.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> See The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 podcast at
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >Has Cursitor Doom been suckered into advertising some anti-spyware product?
>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >Norton doesn't seem to think that the web-site is actively dangerous - and Norton-Symantec has been working for me for some twenty odd years now.
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >Cursitor Doom is notoriously silly, and may be placing his trust in an organisation with rather less of a track record.
>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for that conspicuous display of ignorance, Bill. Pity you
>>> >> >> >> >> >> didn't do a bit of background checking on Steve Gibson before you
>>> >> >> >> >> >> raced to malign him. His pedigree is unimpeachable.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >I've never heard of him, and your recommendation isn't that of any kind of expert - you rate as a gullible sucker around here.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >Who his ancestors were doesn't really come into the effectiveness of his anti-spy-ware - it's not a area where there is a lot of family tradition.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >Anti-spyware software gets updated frequently to deal with the latest threats that have shown up. Having a big and well-funded organisation to collect the data on those threats is rather more important than individual brilliance, let alone the brilliance of hypothetical ancestors.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >If you were using the word "pedigree" in the looser sense of previous associates, it still isn't the right kind of recommendation for this sort of product.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Dear oh dear, Bill. What are we to do with you?
>>> >
>>> >> >> >> >> Steve Gibson isn't involved in anti-virus/anti-spyware in any way. He
>>> >> >> >> >> wrote the leading program for HDD recovery (Spinrite) and that's all.
>>> >> >> >> >> He does plug Spinrite in his podcasts, but it's usually no more than a
>>> >> >> >> >> passing mention out of a 100 minute broadcast, and as I said - NOTHING
>>> >> >> >> >> TO DO WITH ANTI-SPYWARE. Have you got that through your thick skull
>>> >> >> >> >> now? (no offence intended).
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >Your subject line was "OT: Has your Iphone been Spying on You?"
>>> >> >> >> >There is a thick skull around here and it does seem to be yours.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> I'll try to simplify this for your addled brain, Bill:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Cursitor Doom's addled brain is good at producing simplifications - entirely because it can't do complicated.
>>> >> >> >His "simplifications" tend to miss the point.,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> 1. Yes, all of the last 5 generations of Iphone have this capability
>>> >> >> >> built in and a remote party with the access this exploit permits can
>>> >> >> >> go anywhere they want on your Iphone, see all your data and photos etc
>>> >> >> >> and listen in on your calls.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 2. No anti-spyware could have discovered it. It's NOT spyware!
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >You are alleging that it can be exploited by spyware. Presumably the Iphone doesn't give this access to remote parties (Apple itself excluded ).
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Bleating that it could be fooled into doing so is what sells anti-spyware. If it had been fooled into doing so the media would have gone into a frenzy. It hasn't.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> You clearly didn't follow the link and listen to the discussion. OR,
>>> >> >> >> you did, but didn't understand a word of it. Only you know which but I
>>> >> >> >> think I can guess.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Third option - I can recognise a sales pitch when I see it, even if you can't.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> There's a fourth option which I really should have thought of earlier:
>>> >> >> you simply can't resist trolling. The plain fact is that a previously
>>> >> >> unknown backdoor into Apple Iphones has been discovered, so whenever
>>> >> >> the 'authorities' come a-calling with a warrant to spy on someone,
>>> >> >> Apple can no longer claim even *they* can't access a locked phone -
>>> >> >> which is what they've been claiming up til now.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >If they've been claiming it and it wasn't true, a whole bunch of Apple executives will be in serious trouble - lying to law enforcement upsets them no end.
>>> >>
>>> >> Very true. However, Apple would have a defence if they could show that
>>> >> the backdoor was ordered by the NSA (or whoever) on the understanding
>>> >> that it would only be used in cases involving a severe threat to
>>> >> national security and nothing less. That scenario is a distinct
>>> >> possibility and mooted by Steve Gibson in the podcast.
>>> >
>>> >Then they'd have had to tell law enforcement about it. Law enforcement would have had to maintain security about the backdoor.
>>> >
>>> >> >As usual with you wonderful revelations, you have clearly failed to understand an important part of the story and are touting an implausibly dramatic and inaccurate version.
>>> >>
>>> >> >You do it quite reliably enough that nobody sensible is ever going to take you seriously.
>>> >>
>>> >> Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to
>>> >> understand in your esteemed opinion? Because AFAICS, it's *you* who've
>>> >> failed to understand some of the critical aspects.
>>> >
>>> >"A Far as You Can See" isn't all that far.
>>> >
>>> >Your link to
>>> >
>>> >https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/trillions-spent-climate-change-based-faulty-temperature-data-climate-experts-say
>>> >
>>> >demonstrates just how shallow your knowledge is - Zero Hedge was quoting a well known climate change denial propaganda source as the the source for a climate change denial propaganda story, and you reposted it as if it were worth taking seriously.
>>>
>>> I ask again: Pray tell: *which* "important part of the story" have I failed to understand in your esteemed opinion?
>>
>>Which part of "you aren't ever going to be taken seriously" did you fail to understand? Digging into your bullshit posts is a waste of time.
>>Mostly I can blow them out of the water with very little effort. More serious and time consuming analysis isn't justifiable. You are well known to be a twit.
>
>No point getting angry, Bill. Clearly you've already dug into "my
>bullushit posts" and wasted your time doing so, or you wouldn't have
>claimed I've failed to understand some critical aspect. I'd just like
>to know what that was. The fact that you don't seem able to tell me
>would suggest you know of no such aspect and simply made your claim up
>out of fresh air. I've never regarded you before this as a bare-faced
>liar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what other
>conclusion could anyone logically come to?

On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 6:01:41 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 22:02:29 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 8:35:37?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:17:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:41:07?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:42:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:10:46?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:21:46 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 7:36:01?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:47 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:53:16?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:30:17 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 9:25:32?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:20:05 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >>> >> >> >> >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 8:59:41?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

> >No point getting angry, Bill. Clearly you've already dug into "my
> >bullshit posts" and wasted your time doing so, or you wouldn't have
> >claimed I've failed to understand some critical aspect. I'd just like
> >to know what that was. The fact that you don't seem able to tell me
> >would suggest you know of no such aspect and simply made your claim up
> >out of fresh air.

It might suggest that to you, but you do take your fatuous nonsense more seriously than any sane person would

> I've never regarded you before this as a bare-faced
> >liar, but if you can't state what that critical aspect was, what other
> >conclusion could anyone logically come to?
>
> [Deafening silence - for the first time ever, Bill Sloman didn't get
> the last word]

Actually I hit my Google posting limit and couldn't be bothered replicating the post on Eternal September.
> Bill, it's not pleasant to have to accuse someone of being a bare-faced liar, but that's clearly what you are.

You've now posted the accusation twice. so it does seem likely that you do enjoy doing it.

> I suggest you get your facts right and don't resort to untruths next time you fancy your chances taking on the Big Dawg.

You haven't made any kind of case that I got my facts wrong. You are merely objecting that I haven't wasted my time on posting a life-by-line analysis of your fatuous drivel.

I don't take you seriously enough to bother. You rate as the Big Dawg Turd, and I don't have the capacity to expunge your nonsense from the group's posts.

Darius the Dumb does seem to feel that kind of compulsion, but since he never specifies what he dislikes about the posts he objects to he justs wastes more bandwidht than even you can manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney