Apple - Anti Consumer, Anti Competitive, Anti Right to Repair

Apple is technically against the consumer.

The product is stifled, the consumer is not obtaining the benefit of current technology.

Apple is also against you with regards to your lawful right to repair the product, where it goes out of its way to deliberately engineer components that when replaced will not work in your legally owned Apple device.

AZ to be sued over 'defective' vaccine

See article:

https://dailytelegraph.pressreader.com/article/281505050933445

Please note that the drug cannot be called a 'vaccine' as it does not confer immunity, as per United States court case on the 4th of November 2021.

See article:

https://constitutionwatch.com.au/the-covid-19-injections-do-not-confer-immunity-and-therefore-do-not-meet-the-definition-of-a-vaccine/

Europe's new digital identity wallet: Guarantor of digital security or backdoor to tyranny?

Last Wednesday, Thierry Breton, EU's Internal Market Commissioner, proudly announced on Twitter/X that he had struck a deal with MEPs to create a European "digital identity wallet," which would permit all EU citizens to have "a secured e-identity for their lifetime." According to the European Commission's own website, the European Digital Identity can be used for a whole range of transactions, including providing personal identification on and offline, showing birth certificates and medical certificates, opening a bank account, filing tax returns, applying for a university, storing a medical prescription, renting a car, or checking into a hotel.

 

Several people, including Dutch MEP Rob Roos, have raised concerns that a centralised digital ID could put Europeans' privacy and mobility rights in jeopardy. A letter signed by over 500 "cybersecurity experts, researchers, and civil society organisations from across the globe," warns that the proposed digital ID regulations will reduce rather than enhance citizens digital security. But one of its leading architects, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, maintains that "the wallet has the highest level of both security & privacy," while EU President Ursula von der Leyen insists that this is "a technology where we can control ourselves what data is used and how." So either critics are overplaying civil liberty and privacy concerns, or the technology's defenders are downplaying them. They cannot both be right.

In theory, a universal European digital ID could be programmed on a permanent basis in such a way that the citizen has full control over which parts of his or her "digital wallet" he shares at any given moment, and which he or she does not share. We might have little to worry about if a European digital ID was programmed now and forever by people who took privacy seriously and were not inclined to exploit the technology at their fingertips to "nudge" - or even "shove" - citizens into complying with their policies concerning disease control, non-discrimination, war propaganda, or climate change.

But in practice, it would be highly naive to assume that a programmable Europe-wide digital ID, controlled by a centralised bureacracy would not, sooner or later, be exploited to "nudge" (or shove) people into complying with the policies that happen to be favoured by the "powers that be." And it does not require a wild leap of imagination to envisage the sorts of ways a European digital ID could be leveraged to erode the equality and freedom of Europeans, since the very same individuals that are the public face of this digital ID initiative were the ones who set in motion the most pervasive system of bio-surveillance in the history of Europe, namely the so-called "Covid digital certificates."

The operation of the Covid digital certificates, which was approved by both the European Commission (the same one now pushing for a digital ID system) and the European Parliament, can give us a fairly clear idea of the uses to which European technocrats are likely to put a digital ID system, if given the chance.

The Covid digital certificate was used to compel citizens who had not received a Covid vaccine within a certain time period to obtain a costly and inconvenient Covid test every time they crossed a European border, and was even used to deny entry to unvaccinated citizens at cultural and recreational venues across Europe. In other words, the Covid digital certificate served as a mechanism for coercing citizens into injecting a certain medication into their bloodstream, and created a two-tier society, in which the unvaccinated were treated as a new social and political underclass.

Now, imagine if a centrally controlled European digital certificate was offered to all European citizens as a tool for accessing a wide range of services, from banking, air travel and hotel stays to car rentals, access to recreational venues, and access to online digital services. Initially, presumably the certificate would be optional and citizens could use other methods for validating their identity. Then, under the pretext of enhancing citizens' "security," the certificate might very well become obligatory for an increasing number of transactions.

The next step would be to gradually expand the information contained on the certificate, and use the certificate as a way to deny or approve citizens' access to certain services based on their spending habits, their vaccination status, or their "social credit" score. Of course, this is not something we can be 100% certain will happen. But the recent implementation of vaccine apartheid in Europe should disabuse us of any illusion that Europe's political leadership are committed to respecting and defending our civil liberties or our equal access to public amenities and services.

Politicans like Thierry Breton and Ursula von der Leyen, and those MEPs and member state goverments that cheered them on during the pandemic, were prepared to treat citizens like cattle or disease vectors to be vaccinated and tested en masse, with scant regard for their personal medical history and risk factors. It is surely only a matter of time before people with this sort of contempt for individual liberty would be inclined to take advantage of a technology like a universal digital ID as a lever to control people's private choices with a view to advancing their own careers and policy goals.

Quite a few citizens said "no" to an experimental vaccine, and quite a few citizens still question the scientific and political rationale for imposing burdensome carbon taxes, forcibly expropriating farmland based on climate directives, living in "15 minute cities," making space for transgender ideology in their hospitals and classrooms, or abstaining from whatever the powers that be deem to be "hate speech."

What better method to induce public compliance with unpopular or controversial public policies and laws than to reward compliance with enhanced mobility and enhanced access to social amenities and services, and punish non-compliance with reduced mobility and reduced access to services and amenities? Isn't that exactly what the digital Covid certificate, a brainchild of the same Commission, did?

Obviously, advocates of a European digital ID will publicly claim they are only interested in promoting the security of our transactions and protecting our privacy. But since these are the very same people who dare to claim that medical segretation and coercion via vaccine passports "reassures us of (the) spirit of an open Europe, a Europe without barriers," their assurances regarding citizens' privacy and liberties have no credibility whatsoever.

Some people's comments:

danny esq · about 22 hours ago

According to the European Commission's own website, the European Digital Identity can be used for a whole range of transactions, including providing personal identification on and offline, showing birth certificates and medical certificates, opening a bank account, filing tax returns, applying for a university, storing a medical prescription, renting a car, or checking into a hotel.

That is just the begining.   

Demore · about 19 hours ago

Digital ID is a means of population control. People dumb enough to trust and believe in the ''authorities'' aka the sheep will go along smiling until something they use to like is taken away. Gonna be too late then to opt out. The sheep will open the doors to the wolves in a manner of speaking. Meanwhile, the day when those with open eyes will have to chose between cooperating or ''hiding in the woods'' is coming ever closer.   

JohnDukes · about 18 hours ago

It looks like Europeans will have to learn the hard way - again.    

Signs Of The Times.

iPhone Privacy ‘Lies’ Exposed Again: Apple Analytics not Anonymous

Apple has been caught lying in a privacy policy. So say the now-notorious security researchers at Mysk.

Apple promised that the “device analytics” sent to its servers were anonymous. But it turns out that’s not true, according to the researchers. Everything you do in Apple apps, such as the Store, transmits an analytics row, containing a field that directly and uniquely identifies you. This field—the DSID—is linked to highly personal information in Apple’s databases.

Everything you do is logged and permanently linked to your identity. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we ponder moving to Android.

Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Who/Trek cross-references.

No Better Than Google—Perhaps Worse

What’s the craic? Thomas Germain reports—“Apple Says Your iPhone’s Usage Data is Anonymous, but New Tests Say That’s Not True”:

“Findings are especially damning”
The privacy policy governing Apple’s device analytics says “none of the collected information identifies you personally.” But an analysis of the data sent to Apple shows it includes a permanent, unchangeable ID number called a Directory Services Identifier, or DSID. … Apple collects that same ID number along with information for your Apple ID, which means the DSID is directly tied to your full name, phone number, birth date, email address and more.
…
According to Apple’s analytics policy, “Personal data is either not logged at all, is subject to privacy preserving techniques … or is removed from any reports before they’re sent to Apple.” But … the DSID, which is directly tied to your name, is sent to Apple in the same packet as all the other analytics information. … The company hasn’t said anything publicly about the apparent contradictions in its privacy promises.
…
The findings are especially damning given the years Apple spent rebranding itself as a privacy company. Apple’s recent marketing campaigns suggest the company’s privacy practices are supposed to be far better than other tech companies. … But Apple is making strides to build an advertising empire of its own, built on the personal data of its billions of users.

Apple FAIL!!1! But Ben Lovejoy gives Cupertino the benefit of the doubt—“Apple’s promises on analytics anonymity appear to be false”:

“A very big deal”
As the old saying has it, “Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.” I’m pretty confident that Hanlon’s Razor applies here, and that the reason Apple’s assurances appear to be false is down to error rather than a deliberate intent to deceive. The company simply has too much to lose and too little to gain by any nefarious behavior.
…
However, as incompetence goes, this does seem pretty high up the scale. Privacy has become a huge part of Apple’s marketing message, so to fail to protect privacy in not one but two major ways is a very big deal. Apple needs to fix this—and fix it fast.

Horse’s mouth? Tommy Mysk and Talal Haj Bakry:

“No way to stop it”
Apple’s analytics data include … the “Directory Services Identifier”, an ID that uniquely identifies an iCloud account. Meaning, Apple’s analytics can personally identify you.
…
Apple states in their Device Analytics & Privacy statement that the collected data does not identify you personally. This is inaccurate. … DSID is associated with your name, email, and any data in your iCloud account.
…
The DSID is also sent by other Apple apps for analytics purposes. … Analytics data are directly linked to you. … There’s no way to stop it.

What will Apple do about it? devslash0 has no problem predicting:

It’s fairly easy to predict what their response will be. … Their line of defence: … The data contained within the payload sent to the server does not contain any personal information because the dsId field contains jibber-jabber.
…
They will attempt to completely downplay the fact that it can still be correlated with other data sets and lead to the same result. In other words, “We’re not sending any PII in the traditional sense but don’t try to tell us what we can do or not afterwards.”

Weasel words? And the rest, thinks klabb3:

Apple is basically loopholing all the ****ty adtech engagement surveillance BS that plagues the rest of the industry through the app store, pretending like it’s any other app. Of course they can, but a lot of the hard-line privacy stuff goes down the drain with the hypocrisy.

What bothers me is that Apple really doesn’t have to move in this direction. … They’ve been uniquely positioned to basically do things that nobody else can, because they sell so much expensive hardware. Instead, all mega corps seem to blend together and follow the same playbook. It’s sad.

However, Paul Figueiredo is not at all shocked:

Company lied to take advantage of some bad press for their competitors, choosing to use “privacy” as their holier-than-thou advertising schtick—film at eleven.

Of course every company is collecting your data. The only difference between Apple and Google is that Google admits it. Apple lies about it so that gullible millenials can pretend to be better than everyone while sipping their venti-soy-mocha with “sustainable” coffee beans.

Is there really a big issue here? YES, argues solq:

This is a complete failure of anonymization and a specific breach of trust. I refer you to [the iOS Device Analytics privacy policy]. Right at the top, 2nd sentence in fact, you can read the following, which we now know to be untruthful: “None of the collected information identifies you personally.” If the collected information identifies your iCloud account then it also identifies you personally.
…
Apple is trusted on privacy and security in excess of their execution record and this issue adds to that.

Meanwhile, ZeroFox explains like we’re 15:

Someone at a high-rise in a major city, somewhere, knows what kind of porn you like.

Security Boulevard