jdw

Guess who pays for this legal lunacy?  That's right... YOU & ME!  Every Apple product consumer pays for the madness, which is why I for one demand that end it be ended swiftly by a judge who does the right thing and throws it out.  No freebies!  Seriously.  "FREE" is their ultimate goal.  Until the App Store charges ZERO fees, there will be a group of developer nuts who get together and do this over and over again.

anonymouse said:

jdw said:

I am not inclined to believe that Apple lied about not working with governments to create back doors, nor is there any hard evidence to support that either.  But it is unsettling that the NSA could (and possibly still can) infect certain iPhones simply by sending a text message, and the iPhone recipient need not have clicked on anything at all for the malware to become rooted to the phone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN9MzWw9G3o

Well, if you are genuinely rattled by that, and not just affecting concern, you might as well turn off all your devices, from Apple and everyone else, and/or keep them air-gapped. There always have been, and will for the foreseeable future be, software defects capable of exploits, and people willing to invest enormous resources in finding those.

I don't post here unless I am rattled or have concerns or have a passionate opinion, but I am not going to turn off all my devices because that is totally ridiculous advice.  My concern is not about being hacked, but rather about the truthfulness of Apple with regard to their defense of our security, and their public statements that they do not work with governmental organizations like the NSA, FBI, etc., to create back doors.  If the NSA has found a hole, then it would be up to honest Apple to eventually block that hole.  And while that doesn't mean other holes may not be found, and while that doesn't mean people are perfect or there is perfect software, it does mean that known holes can and should be filled.

And there you have it.

I am not inclined to believe that Apple lied about not working with governments to create back doors, nor is there any hard evidence to support that either.  But it is unsettling that the NSA could (and possibly still can) infect certain iPhones simply by sending a text message, and the iPhone recipient need not have clicked on anything at all for the malware to become rooted to the phone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN9MzWw9G3o

williamlondon said:

jdw said:

[...]
But this is Canada we're talking about, so I guess it comes as no huge surprise.

Damn, man, you're on a roll today...

Thank you!   

While I am not from Canada, I have a very good friend who lives there.  He is constantly telling me surprising things that go on there.  Not merely surprising to me, but to him as well.  Perhaps he has more disappointment than surprise, but he nonetheless has to live with a lot of insanity that I do not.  Hence, my prior remarks regarding the next door neighbor to my country of birth was rooted firmly in that knowledge.  If that offends you, I would say you are a bit too sensitive.  Life is hard.  We need be less sensitive and toughen up.  When you're less offended, you're happier.

As to my remarks about the judge, I stand firmly behind them.  The length of our life and our life experiences shape us in good and bad ways.  The ruling is clearly flawed, so we must take some guesses as to what that judge was thinking.  Something obviously skewed the judge's thinking to rule in such a ridiculous manner, it seems only logical that judge is placing an unusually high significance on emoji, something a much older person would likely not do, despite knowing emojis are in wide use today.  As such, my comments were not out of place at all, even if they are speculation.

I do wish to thank you because you made me reflect on what I wrote, and that helped me to see I do not need to second guess myself at all. I stand firmly behind the content of my previous post.

Very bad ruling, as intentions behind emoji are vague.  Any legal expert worth his or her salt should know that.  Lawyers type contracts in great detail for a reason.  A simply emoji cannot be a confirmation of anything legally binding as a result, even when used in the context of a length conversation, especially because most of us use thumbs up to indicate "I have read and noted what you just said."

Makes me think the judge must be a younger person who didn't live a long life before emoji existed.

Definitely a ruling that needs to be overturned.

But this is Canada we're talking about, so I guess it comes as no huge surprise.