Re: DOJ is correct that Apple iPhone is far less secure than Android when RCS messaging is involved

Alan wrote:

On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:

Chris wrote:

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:

>
So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.

>
That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  -  in most civilised
people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.

>
Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.

>
The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
clear case of doing something wrong.

>
No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

>
And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.

>
Not morally.

>
Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
completely lost any sense of reality.
>
At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.

>
If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,

>
What the fuck does that mean?
>

then why wasn't
he criminally prosecuted?

>
Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
CJS for a long time.

>
Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>
Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.

>
Spoken like a true misogynist.

>
Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.

 What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?

Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
AND YEARS and cry "rape"?

Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
prefer the wild west.
>

There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
anything.

>
Countless, really? Examples.

>
Notable you didn't answer this.

>
All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
if you really want to get into that debate.

>
Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.

>
Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>

When everyone is carrying a gun

>
But not everyone carries a gun.

 The simple fact is:
 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
 Deal with it.
 

Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
gun?
And why the focus on the "developed world"? Mexico has fierce gun laws
and a much higher murder rate.