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

Alan wrote:

On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:

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"?

>
Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>

>

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"?

>
Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social development, etc.
>
>

Mexico has fierce gun laws
and a much higher murder rate.

And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>

 Poverty doesn't cause crime.