Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Reckless to put your faith onto one person or company when you don't know them. Darkness i sense, vader you must face....yes...feel the force. -master yoda
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
You do know Apple has to and has given messages from its systems to security services already right? So your the one being fooled.

In fact the only fools on here are those that hate the idea of systems to stop terrorists and criminals and pedophiles in this world, because someone somewhere may read their text messages! Oh the horror.....

And they can keep the keys at Apple, and it would be one dumb company if it leaked them itself!

And if terrorists created their own system, erm, ISPs and providers could easily block it then.
[doublepost=1500572952][/doublepost]

I'm sorry but I refuse to support more secure systems for criminals to use...
LOL - I don't even know where to start...
1) Yes, of course all Americans "hate the idea of systems to stop terrorists and criminals and pedophiles". We love to get blown up, its a thing over here. Give me a break.
2) "they can keep the keys at Apple". If you are as well read as you claim, you might recall that the United State's National Security Agency (arguably the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world) was hacked and host of cyber weapons were stolen. One was mutated into a piece of ransomware called "Wannacry" which infected over 230,000 computers in 150 countries just 2 months ago. If the NSA can't keep their cyber arsenal safe, what makes you think Apple could keep the key to the backdoor safe?
3) Regarding ISPs blocking systems created by terrorists, exactly how would ISPs know? Are terrorists required to check a box somewhere notifying ISPs that the data packets being transmitted are part of terror plot? The technology has been around for over a decade to encode text inside of an image our audio file.
 
Last edited:
I'll think how I want, it's a free world.
Absolutely. You're entitled to your opinion. Just like I am.

And yes you are with the sex offenders and terrorists when you refuse access to messaging services by the Police.
I'm not sure how to refute this logic, because it's not logic. there's no logic to what you are saying. You're saying, essentially from a logical conclusion that if A=B, than B=X. "Pedos want privacy, so anyone who wants privacy is a pedo". that's absolutely ludicrous reasoning. People aren't going to refute or discuss this with you because you're very opinion, is based on completely false reasoning.

You need to realise outside of America people think differently about these things like in Australia. Their are big cultural differences.

I'm not American. What does this have to do with anything. I'm from Canada. And there's one thing in Canada, that is completely unlike even American's (from politics) is our desire for privacy. We have insanely strong privacy laws that limit and control what private enterprises are allowed to share.

the one thing your post had consistent is everything is binary with you. it's either everything is X, or everything else is Y. if I wasn't Australian, i had to be American. If i want privacy, i'm siding with pedophiles.

the world doesn't work in black and white. A grown adult with any critical thinking skills will know this.
 
And ten years ago, the police was completely unable to get any data stored on my phone or in the cloud because there was no data stored on my phone, and there was no cloud. So please explain to me why it is suddenly so important to read information that couldn't be read ten years ago.

Isn't this the point - 10 years the police could tap people's phones and get access to SMSs from Telcos. It wasn't encrypted data so the police could access communication between suspected and actual terrorists. terrorists now have protected areas to communicate and share information. How do you propose the police deal with that?
[doublepost=1500590432][/doublepost]
I sure miss the good ol' days when you could sign up for an e-mail without your phone number or GPS location tied to it, you could visit any site without being worried about gov. monitoring you, you could send pictures online and not worry about leaks or agreed to "terms and services" that shares your whole life story with anyone willing to pay for it.

You're right - I am more concerned about google selling my private information than I am about the government reviewing my private information.
[doublepost=1500590619][/doublepost]
Or you know.....actually vote in the first place and for the right person into office.

You know it is mandatory for people to vote in Australia?
 
This entire subject still fries my mind. Force bad actors to use other secure means of communication, so that normal people, including those making the legislation, can be vulnerable to bad actors.

I wake up every morning thinking it must be a bad dream, and then it dawns on me that everyone is ****ing stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwipeso1 and mwd25
Let's have a bit of reality here. Apple complies with local laws. I'm sure they'll lobby against the destruction of privacy, but it says it complies with local laws… even in China, which is regarded as not caring for privacy at all.

So what does Chinese law require? What does Apple do in this case? This is the MINIMUM amount of journalism required to gauge what's going to happen in the UK and Australia. Nobody is doing that to inform the public. It's all outcry, no FACTS.

Governments have always had unfettered access to communications. This is not new. Enemy Of The State is the most public exploration of this theme and that pre-dates the Snowdon era by quite a bit. Encrypted services will be dangled in front of the public to get them 'on board', and ultimately subverted to the government imperative.

Governments will always want unfettered access to communications, even though the Australian Prime Minister saw fit to transact public business on a Clintion-like private email server, and Wickr and What'sApp for their privacy. Do you see anyone throwing this back at the Australian government? No.

Let people complain, then bulldoze their rights and privacy. This is all you'll see unless the public takes to this with the zeal they display for Game Of Thrones!! Wake up global citizens, global government is about to Big Brother us all.
 
I wonder what will happen when the Chinese government starts demanding a back door key. They could make things very difficult for Apple.
 
I'll think how I want, it's a free world. And yes you are with the sex offenders and terrorists when you refuse access to messaging services by the Police.
You need to realise outside of America people think differently about these things like in Australia. Their are big cultural differences.

And you are with the mob, stalkers, rapists, thiefs and extortionists if you want backdoors to secure communications.
 
Then you're easily fooled. Not only is putting in a backdoor making the encrypted service 100% useless, and allowing every user of the service to be potentially exploited when a hacker finds the backdoor, but it's also going to push terrorists to create their own system.
The "bad guys" will move - if they already haven't - to open source, possibly modified for their specific uses. These governmental intrusions on privacy don't stop "terrorists", they affect the mass of everyday users. These anti-terrorist tactics gloss over the real goal, which is to spy on everyone. It's using a huge global net to catch a few minnows and guppies - you'll nail tons of fish, but likely miss the minnows and guppies altogether.
[doublepost=1500639302][/doublepost]
I sure miss the good ol' days when you could sign up for an e-mail without your phone number or GPS location tied to it, you could visit any site without being worried about gov. monitoring you, you could send pictures online and not worry about leaks or agreed to "terms and services" that shares your whole life story with anyone willing to pay for it.
That was mostly the internet before it was commercialized, beginning in the early 90s. Prior to that, 30 or more years ago, it was mostly for free exchange of knowledge between higher education and research institutions. I remember the first major world wide internet hack, documented in 1989 by Clifford Stoll in his excellent book, "The Cuckoo's Egg". The internet's days of relative innocence were over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Stoll .
 
Last edited:
Exactly what does 'lobbying' government officials entail... not a joke here i'm really curious what they do?
 
Governments: Decrypt all the messages! It will stop terrorists!

Companies: OK here you go

Terrorists: lol we'll just use something else then..

General public: So we've just lost our right to privacy for nothing? o_O And you're going to give this access to every single future government as well, including the untrustworthy ones? Jesus H. Christ, who's the bigger threat again??
Perhaps they will switch to encrypted smoke signals. :eek:
 
Apple has all of the leverage here

They can just outright refuse to comply even if legislation is passed. Then AU lawmakers will ban iPhones and royally piss off their electorate who will make such a fuss (or quit reelecting them) that it won't be politically feasible to continue the ban.
 
There's a difference between perfectly legal tax deductions written into law and a corporation making a direct deal corporation-to-government that breaks international treaties the government in question has signed and legally bound themselves to following. This is essentially the corporate equivalent of receiving stolen goods, which if you didn't know, is a crime.



Seeing how you don't really seem to understand what's going on here, let me explain:

The EU, as a multinational organization has a number of laws that it's member states legally bind themselves to follow by signing a number of treaties. Much of these are related to trade as the original purpose of the EU was to form an European trading block where goods and services with flow across borders without unnecessary bureaucracy, tolls or double taxes. What this means is that a company in one member state can sell goods and services in another member state without having to pay any extra tolls or taxes. If it's a direct to consumer sale then sales tax is only charged in the country where the customer is and if it's a business-to-business sale any tax is reimbursed. When a company then makes a profit, they only pay taxes on this profit in the country they're operating out of.

What Apple essentially did was have their main European operation in Ireland, which is an EU member, and sold their products to customers and retailers from there thus only having to pay a tax on their profits in Ireland. The problem with this was that they had a secret deal with the Irish government that allowed them to pay next to no tax on their profits in the whole of the EU. Why was the deal secret? Because it falls under state aid as defined under the Treaty of Lisbon, one of the EU's founding documents, and being an old member state Ireland has both signed the and ratified the treaty in question several decades ago.



Ireland has said that they don't think what they did was state aid, but that doesn't mean they didn't break EU law, which they've legally bound themselves to following. If Ireland didn't know that their deal with Apple then why would they have kept it a secret? The obvious answer to this is that it was kept a secret because both parties knew it was illegal.



So all you really have to come with is to call me a liar because you don't like that there's such a thing as EU treaties and Apple isn't allowed to break them because one member state thinks it's OK.



See the three paragraph part of this post where I explain this.
Most of your post is mindless and incorrect rambling. For example:
"What Apple essentially did was have their main European operation in Ireland, which is an EU member, and sold their products to customers and retailers from there thus only having to pay a tax on their profits in Ireland. The problem with this was that they had a secret deal with the Irish government that allowed them to pay next to no tax on their profits in the whole of the EU. Why was the deal secret? Because it falls under state aid as defined under the Treaty of Lisbon, one of the EU's founding documents, and being an old member state Ireland has both signed the and ratified the treaty in question several decades ago."

There is no "secret" deal. None. Zip. Zilch. It is the same deal used by many companies and is not, as the EC lied about, a special deal. The problem lies in differences and uniformity in tax codes between different countries. The EC acts as a whacky out of control organization making laws up as they go (look at the Right to White Wash History as an example) seeking judicial changes not through a legislative process but by making outlandish rulings not based on existing laws.. The rest of your view on this is equally warped.
 
And what do you do after you inform the politicians / public, the law is passed anyways, and the courts demand that Apple comply.

At that point it's a binary solution. Apple either puts in a back door or pulls out of the market.

Would you put in the back door or pull out of the market ?

That is not so. The Australians may have a law. So what are the fines for breaching these laws? Imagine this goes to court and some judge who is not too keen on the idiots in power fines Apple $1,000 a month. This isn't binary.
[doublepost=1500656912][/doublepost]
3) Regarding ISPs blocking systems created by terrorists, exactly how would ISPs know? Are terrorists required to check a box somewhere notifying ISPs that the data packets being transmitted are part of terror plot?
I am sure sending terrorist packages is against the terms of service of your ISP :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoctorTech
Exactly what does 'lobbying' government officials entail... not a joke here i'm really curious what they do?
I am a former state legislator (back in the 1990s). Lobbying is simply trying to convince lawmakers (or other elected officials) to support a certain piece of legislation or idea. The most common forms of lobbying I experienced was an organization (i.e. company, union, civic club, etc.) organizing a bunch of their employees / members to come to the Statehouse during a legislative session and making sure each employee / member gets a chance to meet their senator or representative in person. That sends a clear message to the elected officials that "I have someone in my district who cares about this issue and cares enough to drive to the Statehouse to meet me".

Lobbying also happens when big organizations rent a hotel ballroom near the Statehouse, invite all their membership (sometimes with thousands attending) and they invite members of the legislature to dinner or light refreshments. Whoever attends is usually given a short presentation about what bills the organization would like to see passed or defeated and they are met by people who live in their districts. Elected officials who do not attend are sometimes discussed from the microphone at the event as "not caring" about the concerns of their voters. Those officials who attend are sometimes featured positively in newsletters and on the websites of the organization. Lobbying may also involve running radio and/or newspaper or TV ads in support of an issue / piece of legislation and asking the public to "contact your representative" and tell them to support / oppose (fill in the blank).

Lobbying and campaign donations are two sides of the same coin. Campaign donations are all about trying to get people who agree with you most of the time elected or re-elected. Lobbying is about trying to convince whoever is already elected to vote the way you want them to vote.
 
Last edited:
Lobbying and campaign donations are two sides of the same coin. Campaign donations are all about trying to get people who agree with you most of the time elected or re-elected. Lobbying is about trying to convince whoever is already elected to vote the way you want them to vote.

It's always a fun and amusing thing to do when a bad bill is coming out that clearly favours some form of corporate entity, which politicians back the bill and which agencies paid for their campaign.

Quite often you will find that the Government representative was directly funded by some company who wants a bill either pushed / killed.

I think there needs to be policy, that if you receive campaign financing from a corporation, you must recuse yourself from any vote / bill / legislation that directly impacts the industry that company is in.
 
It's always a fun and amusing thing to do when a bad bill is coming out that clearly favours some form of corporate entity, which politicians back the bill and which agencies paid for their campaign.

Quite often you will find that the Government representative was directly funded by some company who wants a bill either pushed / killed.

I think there needs to be policy, that if you receive campaign financing from a corporation, you must recuse yourself from any vote / bill / legislation that directly impacts the industry that company is in.
I've been out of politics for 20 years now (I quit running for re-election after 2 terms). The problem with having representatives recuse themselves from votes affecting their donors is that most legislation is so broad that it impacts multiple industries. The ultimate example is the state budget which touches nearly everything from education to transportation to corporate taxes to economic development. Laws vary by state but most states do require legislators to abstain from voting on legislation that directly impact their own businesses (i.e. if a legislator owns a nursing home, they would be prohibited from voting on any legislation primarily focused on regulating / deregulating nursing homes).

Even if your sole reason for running for office is a single issue near and dear to your heart (lets just say access to mental health professionals for the sake of argument) you will still be voting on countless other issues. Some of those other issues have 2 very polarized sides and well funded sides to them (balance of power between unions and management, pro-gambling vs anti-gambling, environmentalists vs business, etc. etc.). If you are neutral on any of those issues, you will be targeted for intense lobbying by both sides to win you over to their way of thinking. If you are strongly on one side or the other for a given issue, you will be targeted in the next election by the people who disagree with you (who will give campaign donations to your opponent) and you may be helped by the people you agree with who give you campaign donations to help you stay in office.

The correlation between donations and voting records is very common but not necessarily cause & effect. Did organization "X" give legislator "Y" money because that legislator has a long history of supporting the positions held by the organization or did legislator "Y" flip his/her position because organization "X" gave them a campaign donation last year? Both times I ran for office, I was supported by some political action committees because of the way I answered questions in candidate forums and I was targeted by other political action committees who backed my opponents for the exact same answers I gave in candidate forums. My greatest compliment while I was in office was a constituent who told me that he disagreed with the way I voted on an issue important to him but he said he appreciated the fact that I was consistent with what I had said during the campaign.
 
So from your experience, what do you think a good solution to remove paid lobbying from influencing government decisions? Especially those that negatively impact the society as whole?
 
LOL - ok, ok your phenomenal logic has won me over. You are right. What was I thinking... Who is Apple to stand up to the desires of the Australian government and the 23 million citizens they represent. We Americans are sooooo selfish o_O

So Australia gets to decide what can and can't go into iOS 11. Then China, with their 1.34 billion people can dictate what Apple can and can't put in iOS 12. Maybe North Korea or Syria can set the rules for iOS 13 :rolleyes:

>thankfully I don't live in a country where the things you describe exist
Yes, I am also thankful you don't live here. :cool:
[doublepost=1500583840][/doublepost]
The cultural differences aren't that big. I bet I've spent more time in Sydney than you have in the United States. You do have a beautiful country, I was particularly fond of the Blue Mountains, the wild life refuge that I visited and the Opera House (and your movie theaters blow away the theaters we have here in the Midwest). But no, valuing privacy is NOT equal to "siding with" sex offenders and terrorists. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Yes, you are thinking in an utterly selfish manner, you somehow believe that what Americans want is automatically what the rest of the planet has to have also... thankfully, different counties request different things like security access, and Apple has to comply if it wants access to that market. And only in America do you unconditionally believe in suing everyone and everything for ludicrous sums of money, and you believe you must defend freedom of speech no matter what, even if it does mean a terrorist walks free. Oh and you love to shoot each other an awful lot.

Two responses.

1) A lot of people would consider you a fool if you believe that the government is here to protect you. My guess is that you are too young to have experienced the years of failed government promises and also to young to have seen first hand the years of government abuse. If you haven't seen this, then you've not been looking.

2) The telegraph, the sun, and the daily mail are not reliable news sources. Yes even a broken clock is correct twice a day, buy that does not make it a working clock. Same for these news sources. They don't have reporters any more, only editors and they report what they consider will sell, true or not. And a lot of people don't care to understand if the news they consume is true or not.

Well, why do you have an armed forces then? Their entire sole purpose is to the security of the people of its country as dictated by the government in power presently run by Donald Trump, his finger is on that button... and those newspapaers are reliable sources actually, it is only your opinion to think otherwise.

Yep, you have no idea what freedom means.

Yeap, I think I do, I can come on here and reply to your daft comment for one.

LOL - I don't even know where to start...
1) Yes, of course all Americans "hate the idea of systems to stop terrorists and criminals and pedophiles". We love to get blown up, its a thing over here. Give me a break.
2) "they can keep the keys at Apple". If you are as well read as you claim, you might recall that the United State's National Security Agency (arguably the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world) was hacked and host of cyber weapons were stolen. One was mutated into a piece of ransomware called "Wannacry" which infected over 230,000 computers in 150 countries just 2 months ago. If the NSA can't keep their cyber arsenal safe, what makes you think Apple could keep the key to the backdoor safe?
3) Regarding ISPs blocking systems created by terrorists, exactly how would ISPs know? Are terrorists required to check a box somewhere notifying ISPs that the data packets being transmitted are part of terror plot? The technology has been around for over a decade to encode text inside of an image our audio file.

Yes, you will defend your constitution even if it means criminals walk no matter what. That is American culture. You don't trust your government one bit, yet you fully trust your armed forces entirely under your governments power and control.
And it was suggested before by the American security services that Apple would have devices sent to them to be unlocked by Apple only, it's not difficult to have a computer in a secure room off any network and in some faraday cage with the keys.
Also the NSA hack, no, a employee stole data and information and hacking tools on a USB key and walked out the front door, that led to the worms etc after, it took an American to physically steal the tools first! No hack involved what so ever.
Now I'm sure Apple could ensure none of its board or employees stole its tools from within its new spaceship HQ if desired.
As for ISPs, it's called the internet, it requires you to use computers and networks where everything is recorded.. it's only in SciFi magic fantasy land you can't be tracked I'm afraid, this story is about iMessage, not the internet.

Absolutely. You're entitled to your opinion. Just like I am.


I'm not sure how to refute this logic, because it's not logic. there's no logic to what you are saying. You're saying, essentially from a logical conclusion that if A=B, than B=X. "Pedos want privacy, so anyone who wants privacy is a pedo". that's absolutely ludicrous reasoning. People aren't going to refute or discuss this with you because you're very opinion, is based on completely false reasoning.



I'm not American. What does this have to do with anything. I'm from Canada. And there's one thing in Canada, that is completely unlike even American's (from politics) is our desire for privacy. We have insanely strong privacy laws that limit and control what private enterprises are allowed to share.

the one thing your post had consistent is everything is binary with you. it's either everything is X, or everything else is Y. if I wasn't Australian, i had to be American. If i want privacy, i'm siding with pedophiles.

the world doesn't work in black and white. A grown adult with any critical thinking skills will know this.

I'm sure Canadians have the same cultural thinking as Americans right? You also would willingly protect privacy anove all else, and that includes access to evidence to stop terrorists etc. That's the problem, and no one is suggesting you need to stop security, just questioning why the hell you texting your mate a stupid picture requires security levels higher then anything else on the planet!
Apple already hand over messages backed up to iCloud. So if your messages have been, then they can be accessed if requested. From what they say on here.

Here's a question to you all, do you defend Facebook and You Tube to post hate videos, videos of ISIL murdering people, not fake, real, and posting them on those websites along with hate speech against the West and its society? I mean it's freedom of speech right? The one thing you all protect above all else, someone's right to speak death to you and your children, rape to your women.
Because this happens regularly. Yet you support your armed forces being sent off to fight ISIL..

Which is it? Defend ISIL on one hand, attack them with the other?
 
Last edited:
Here's a question to you all, do you defend Facebook and You Tube to post hate videos, videos of ISIL murdering people, not fake, real, and posting them on those websites along with hate speech against the West and its society? I mean it's freedom of speech right? The one thing you all protect above all else, someone's right to speak death to you and your children, rape to your women.
Because this happens regularly. Yet you support your armed forces being sent off to fight ISIL..

What a loaded bullocks question, jsut like the rest of your post.

First, you're assumption that Canada is close to US so our ideals is close is asanine and shows you have no concept of the world outside your own bubble. Just like because you're Aussie I don't automatically assume you're also just like New Zealanders' (or vice versa)

secondly. Unlike American's, no, i don't believe the constitution / charter of rights of freedoms is some religious doctrine that must be 100% adhered to constantly and for all causes. Heck, my own government agrees and actually includes in our charter a section that lets the government temporary bypass the constitution if they believe it to be in public safety.

The problem is, These advanced spying laws have not proven to be successful in anyway. All the Terorrists that we've managed to stop, weren't stopped by digital spying, but by community collaboration and integration. The VIA rail train plot was stopped because the Muslim communities turned in their own people instead of letting them commit.

You, and many politicians have the false notion that to stop 1 person, 35 million must give up some rights. Most Canadian's are going to say no to this. Now if you could viably show that thousands of lives will be saved, you might get some argument here. But we, as Canadians' are not ready to sign over our digital privacy rights for a perceived boogeyman who hasn't actually attacked us.

And it's not like Canadian governments haven't violated our charter before. When public safety is a concern, we're amicable to it. Ontario brought in random alcohol testing roadblocks. This was unconstitutional. But the Government, and the people agreed that despite it's unconsistutional nature, we should allow it to continue because it was in our best interest to do so.

so far, there's been zero "best interest to do so" stories for violating our privacy rights. So why would we allow the government to do so. The problem isn't even necessarily that the current government might abuse it. But what about the government 10 years from now? 20? 30? once that door is opened to allow for full public spying, its extremely hard to close it (ask the USA on the Patriot Act). In Addition, forcing tech companies to put a purposeful backdoor is dangerous, as all it takes is some "really bad dudes" from getting access to that backdoor to use it for crappy purposes (like the Petra virus, which was a back door the NSA created that got accidentally leaked)

So no. your very arguments and premise in this thread are faulty. and you stand pretty much alone on this forum thinking that "if you want privacy you defend the pedos"
 
What a loaded bullocks question, jsut like the rest of your post.

First, you're assumption that Canada is close to US so our ideals is close is asanine and shows you have no concept of the world outside your own bubble. Just like because you're Aussie I don't automatically assume you're also just like New Zealanders' (or vice versa)

secondly. Unlike American's, no, i don't believe the constitution / charter of rights of freedoms is some religious doctrine that must be 100% adhered to constantly and for all causes. Heck, my own government agrees and actually includes in our charter a section that lets the government temporary bypass the constitution if they believe it to be in public safety.

The problem is, These advanced spying laws have not proven to be successful in anyway. All the Terorrists that we've managed to stop, weren't stopped by digital spying, but by community collaboration and integration. The VIA rail train plot was stopped because the Muslim communities turned in their own people instead of letting them commit.

You, and many politicians have the false notion that to stop 1 person, 35 million must give up some rights. Most Canadian's are going to say no to this. Now if you could viably show that thousands of lives will be saved, you might get some argument here. But we, as Canadians' are not ready to sign over our digital privacy rights for a perceived boogeyman who hasn't actually attacked us.

And it's not like Canadian governments haven't violated our charter before. When public safety is a concern, we're amicable to it. Ontario brought in random alcohol testing roadblocks. This was unconstitutional. But the Government, and the people agreed that despite it's unconsistutional nature, we should allow it to continue because it was in our best interest to do so.

so far, there's been zero "best interest to do so" stories for violating our privacy rights. So why would we allow the government to do so. The problem isn't even necessarily that the current government might abuse it. But what about the government 10 years from now? 20? 30? once that door is opened to allow for full public spying, its extremely hard to close it (ask the USA on the Patriot Act). In Addition, forcing tech companies to put a purposeful backdoor is dangerous, as all it takes is some "really bad dudes" from getting access to that backdoor to use it for crappy purposes (like the Petra virus, which was a back door the NSA created that got accidentally leaked)

So no. your very arguments and premise in this thread are faulty. and you stand pretty much alone on this forum thinking that "if you want privacy you defend the pedos"

Funny, your entire post read like American culture.
And the NSA didn't accidentally leak anything, stop changing facts, tools were physically stolen, that's not 'accidentally leaking'.
In fact your entire post is waffle, and I'm the only one with common sense, you also obviously refuse to discuss the Internet and it's darker side which leads into iMessage security, hence your very flippant dismay of my question. Perhaps you can't comprehend the question?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.