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

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:

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.

>
He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?

>
No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.

>
You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>

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.

>
No one needs vigilantes.

>
Self-defense is not vigilantism.

>
Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".

>
Yes it is.

 Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.