“Anyone who uses an iPhone doesn’t give a shit about privacy or security.” There you go.
“Anyone who uses an iPhone doesn’t give a shit about privacy or security.” There you go.
What hostility? It’s a publicly available fact that iPhone is terrible for privacy and security. Anyone who’s interested in this app and is using an iPhone isn’t serious about either.
Again - you’re being deliberately obtuse. I’m not going to converse with someone who is so determined to ignore my substantive point.
Lol, I’m sincerely not sure whether this is a joke? If so, bravo, this is hilarious.
I like how you conveniently ignored the second sentence in my comment.
how weird it is that doing sex for money on camera generally is seen as distinct from doing sex for money off camera, even though that’s effectively an arbitrary legal and moral distinction to make. you can’t even point to an obvious difference between the two that justifies the distinction
This is just obtuse - sex on camera isn’t done for the gratification of the participants. None of the people engaged in the sexual act is paying to get off.
Yaaaay, more consumer-hostile ipads with wheels.
Thanks for telling us, this was a great contribution to the discussion.
The fact that this poor mentally ill person was ever in the news is depressing as fuck. Stop gawking and get this guy some therapy.
Are downvotes disabled here? If so, why?
Because the admins here are thin-skinned children who do not practice what they preach.
After the debacle with the misleading photo of the French river a couple weeks ago, I’m gonna need a source before I take this seriously.
Roald Dahl could be so damn wholesome
I’m not saying you’re wrong in principle, or that Big Tech is trustworthy. Just that in this specific instance, the fault doesn’t lie with Apple.
You can still buy a 4k “dumb” TV from Sceptre. I’ve been pretty happy with mine.
How secure is their system If they are not able to verify an official email from a scam email?
It sounds like you may not have read the article. It’s not like they fell for a phishing email; bad actors had access to the actual police email servers.
To my mind, the problem there is the legal framework permitting these warrantless “emergency” requests in the first place. You can hardly blame Apple for responding to an email from a compromised police address; they have no way of knowing it’s compromised.
You said:
My rephrasing makes no such assumptions. It is a general statement, and as someone who works in digital forensics, it’s one I stand by. Anyone who cares about their privacy or security will run screaming from the Apple ecosystem.