4 ms·

Another commenter put it in better terms, so you may understand it: Suppose we know there are people who smuggle drugs on airplanes on their person for the pur

Another commenter put it in better terms, so you may understand it: Suppose we know there are people who smuggle drugs on airplanes on their person for the purpose of something terrible, like addicting children or poisoning people. If I run an airport I could say: to stop this, I'm going to subject everyone who flies out of my airport to a body-cavity search. Tim, and Craig, are you OK with this? If I can say, "Don't worry! We have created this great robots that ensure the body cavity searches are gentle and the minimum needed to check for illegal drugs," does it really change anything to make it more acceptable to you?

zepto 5y ago
I haven’t said anything about what is acceptable. I was just pointing out a falsehood you wrote about what is actually being done.
- zekrioca 5y ago
  No falsehoods, it is the device, even though it is only a specific part of it. I know you got the point I tried (or rather, the other commenter) to make about the part of someone's body meaning "the whole" of a person. Same philosophical view can be applied to the device. Anyway, someone in here can accept what the other can't, so let's leave at that and let history tells.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 5y ago
    It’s a lie to say they are scanning the device, when you know that are only scanning files that are uploaded. We know now that you understand both this distinction and what Apple is actually doing, so it’s clear that you were lying.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    Chrome safe browsing feature shows a warning if you browse to a URL which Google have flagged as hosting known malware. If you described this as "Google blocks your device from connecting to servers that don't have their approval" would the listener get an accurate understanding of what was and was not happening? If Chrome scanned downloaded files for viruses and you described that to someone as "scans your computer for viruses" do you think the listener would come away with an accurate understanding of what was happening and accurate understanding of what they were and were not being protected from? If BestBuy GeekSquad offered a service to "check your device for problems" and all they did was open your photo collection, would you walk away arguing that it proves the screen and mouse and CPU and disk must function and nobody could expect them to do any more than that, service provided, full marks, that's "the device" checked? Or would you hope that "checking the device for problems" might involve at least exercising all the major features like speakers, wifi, bluetooth, at least once, and preferably with stress and thermal tests? When the TSA ask you to switch your device on to demonstrate that it's not a bomb, are you on the side of "if the screen lights up, the device is thoroughly and effectively tested and cannot contain anything else" or on the side of "an attacker could make up many ways to make the screen glow while hollowing out the insides, this does not really demonstrate that 'the device' is safe"?
jodrellblank 5y ago
They're not misunderstanding it; you're deliberately using an inaccurate description to mislead people while trying to hide behind "technically not lying", and they're calling you out on it.
- zekrioca 5y ago
  Am I, though? Is Apple? Is parent's? It seems "their" (whoever you meant) interpretation of what does and doesn't constitute something is looser than my interpretation.
  - zepto 5y ago
    You said Apple was scanning the device. They aren’t. This is what you are being called out on.
    - zekrioca 5y ago
      A-ha, so you meant that the device is scanning itself, and not Apple? Clever, very clever technicality.
      - jodrellblank 5y ago
        What you're doing is changing "Two Americans run their homes on solar panels" into "American homes run on solar panels" with the intent of fudging the quantity so that readers assume it means most or all of them, while being able to argue "they are American homes, plural, so it's correct". "Device scans photos" and "Apple scans device" imply two very different things about how much is scanned, and you're using the latter because you know that if you describe it accurately readers won't be as panicked as you want them to be.
        zekrioca 5y ago
        Sure buddy, that’s exactly my point, how would you figure? I do not miss the forest for the trees though.

zepto 5y ago

I haven’t said anything about what is acceptable. I was just pointing out a falsehood you wrote about what is actually being done.

zekrioca 5y ago
No falsehoods, it is the device, even though it is only a specific part of it. I know you got the point I tried (or rather, the other commenter) to make about the part of someone's body meaning "the whole" of a person. Same philosophical view can be applied to the device. Anyway, someone in here can accept what the other can't, so let's leave at that and let history tells.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s a lie to say they are scanning the device, when you know that are only scanning files that are uploaded. We know now that you understand both this distinction and what Apple is actually doing, so it’s clear that you were lying.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  Chrome safe browsing feature shows a warning if you browse to a URL which Google have flagged as hosting known malware. If you described this as "Google blocks your device from connecting to servers that don't have their approval" would the listener get an accurate understanding of what was and was not happening? If Chrome scanned downloaded files for viruses and you described that to someone as "scans your computer for viruses" do you think the listener would come away with an accurate understanding of what was happening and accurate understanding of what they were and were not being protected from? If BestBuy GeekSquad offered a service to "check your device for problems" and all they did was open your photo collection, would you walk away arguing that it proves the screen and mouse and CPU and disk must function and nobody could expect them to do any more than that, service provided, full marks, that's "the device" checked? Or would you hope that "checking the device for problems" might involve at least exercising all the major features like speakers, wifi, bluetooth, at least once, and preferably with stress and thermal tests? When the TSA ask you to switch your device on to demonstrate that it's not a bomb, are you on the side of "if the screen lights up, the device is thoroughly and effectively tested and cannot contain anything else" or on the side of "an attacker could make up many ways to make the screen glow while hollowing out the insides, this does not really demonstrate that 'the device' is safe"?

jodrellblank 5y ago

They're not misunderstanding it; you're deliberately using an inaccurate description to mislead people while trying to hide behind "technically not lying", and they're calling you out on it.

zekrioca 5y ago
Am I, though? Is Apple? Is parent's? It seems "their" (whoever you meant) interpretation of what does and doesn't constitute something is looser than my interpretation.
- zepto 5y ago
  You said Apple was scanning the device. They aren’t. This is what you are being called out on.
  - zekrioca 5y ago
    A-ha, so you meant that the device is scanning itself, and not Apple? Clever, very clever technicality.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      What you're doing is changing "Two Americans run their homes on solar panels" into "American homes run on solar panels" with the intent of fudging the quantity so that readers assume it means most or all of them, while being able to argue "they are American homes, plural, so it's correct". "Device scans photos" and "Apple scans device" imply two very different things about how much is scanned, and you're using the latter because you know that if you describe it accurately readers won't be as panicked as you want them to be.
      - zekrioca 5y ago
        Sure buddy, that’s exactly my point, how would you figure? I do not miss the forest for the trees though.