From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

Clearly you've lost interest WPS privacy as in the days since this post you've gone out of your way to look for other ways to bash Apple in your
own inimitable way: Dozens of posts full of anecdote, opinion and unverifiable claims.

Hi Chris,

Happy New Year!

I'll ignore that you're constantly hurling insults to focus on the
technical issues we've been discussing that you need to process fully.

1. I'm currently running the experiment I said I was going to run.
<https://i.postimg.cc/44WKMKpJ/apple-wps-testing.jpg>
2. These three access points have been set up in a random home.
a. no opt out directive, no hidden-beacon frame
b. opt-out directive, no hidden-beacon frame
c. opt-out directive, hidden-beacon frame
3. I already know what's going to happen as I understand what Apple does
But as you can surmise, I've been busy with other things lately.

What you need to process fully is I already proved it was trivial.
You don't understand the proof so there's nothing more for me to do.

A. You don't understand what the original code does
B. You don't understand what my modifications to the code did
C. And, you've never run either the original code or the modified code

Just from seeing my results, everyone who processed the results can
understand how trivial it is to reproduce what the researchers claimed.

I simply reproduced it.
And it was trivial.

To understand how trivial it is, you need to process the proof provided.

Since you haven't processed what we've done, nor what the researchers
actually said about the process that I, myself, proved was easy, it's not really going to help for me to give you the same proof over & over again.

If I felt like it, and if I felt like dedicating the disk space for it, I
could easily obtain two billion GPS:BSSID pairs out of the Apple WPS db.

Just like the researchers said anyone could do.

Once I have the two billion pairs (the researchers said it took a few weeks
but a determined malefactor would invest that time) I can track the APs.

That's for every access point in the world (that's in Apple's WPS db).
It would be less for every access point in any given state, of course.

I already wrote the script to track an AP that moves more than 100KM.
You haven't processed that proof yet, but I gave it to you weeks ago.

What's so hard about changing that script to be one specific locale?
It's trivial.

For you to require me to modify the script to do what it obviously can do
(and does do, but for 100KM at this point), is not worth my time, Chris.

If you can't process the proof you have, then there's nothing more anyone
can say to you, because you have to be able to process it to understand it.
--
There is no way anyone can provide enough proof to someone who is bent on defending Apple's actions to the death, no matter what proof you provide.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Clearly you've lost interest WPS privacy as in the days since this post
you've gone out of your way to look for other ways to bash Apple in your
own inimitable way: Dozens of posts full of anecdote, opinion and
unverifiable claims.

Hi Chris,

Happy New Year!

I'll ignore that you're constantly hurling insults to focus on the
technical issues we've been discussing that you need to process fully.

1. I'm currently running the experiment I said I was going to run.
<https://i.postimg.cc/44WKMKpJ/apple-wps-testing.jpg>
2. These three access points have been set up in a random home.
a. no opt out directive, no hidden-beacon frame
b. opt-out directive, no hidden-beacon frame
c. opt-out directive, hidden-beacon frame

I'll genuinely be interested in your results. As long as you report them honestly and fully.

3. I already know what's going to happen as I understand what Apple does

This makes me fear you will not report results that don't fit your bias.
This attitude exemplifies why I constantly rebuff your claims of being a "scientist".

But as you can surmise, I've been busy with other things lately.

What you need to process fully is I already proved it was trivial.

You've proved nothing. Regardless of how many times you claim to have.

Your experiment could provide some useful data, however.

You don't understand the proof so there's nothing more for me to do.

Dripping with arrogance. Spoken like a true Donald.

A. You don't understand what the original code does

I understand it better than you and made you improve it.

B. You don't understand what my modifications to the code did

lol. You don't understand them because chatgpt wrote it for you.

I've written and published far more complicated code. Your code is at the
level of my freshest students.

C. And, you've never run either the original code or the modified code

I ran the original code, but not your code because it is dependent on
windows. I can't be bothered to boot my PC just for this dull exercise.

Just from seeing my results, everyone who processed the results can understand how trivial it is to reproduce what the researchers claimed.

I simply reproduced it.
And it was trivial.

None of this happened.

To understand how trivial it is, you need to process the proof provided.

Since you haven't processed what we've done, nor what the researchers actually said about the process that I, myself, proved was easy, it's not really going to help for me to give you the same proof over & over again.

If I felt like it, and if I felt like dedicating the disk space for it, I could easily obtain two billion GPS:BSSID pairs out of the Apple WPS db.

Just like the researchers said anyone could do.

You have claimed and still claim that you can track *people*. That's unique
to you and is the basis of the criticism you're receiving. This is what you haven't proved.

Once I have the two billion pairs (the researchers said it took a few weeks but a determined malefactor would invest that time) I can track the APs.

That's for every access point in the world (that's in Apple's WPS db).

Your "proof" is dependent on having access to US postal records. Not global
in any sense.

It would be less for every access point in any given state, of course.

Yet you've shown no way to link a BSSID to an address, other than
theoretical handwaving, unless you physical drive to that location. Hence
why you ALWAYS snip my comments. You NEVER have the answer.

I already wrote the script to track an AP that moves more than 100KM.
You haven't processed that proof yet, but I gave it to you weeks ago.

You wrote 100s of posts in December no-one can follow them all. If only you behaved normally and used code sharing resource like any proper developer/hacker who is genuine would do.

What's so hard about changing that script to be one specific locale?
It's trivial.

For reasons I've provided in detail, it is not. I know this professionally. Data linkage is not trivial especially when dealing with geospatial data.

What you have actually achieved so far *is* trivial. That does not mean the next steps are equally trivial. They are not.

For you to require me to modify the script to do what it obviously can do (and does do, but for 100KM at this point), is not worth my time, Chris.

If you can't process the proof you have, then there's nothing more anyone
can say to you, because you have to be able to process it to understand it.

The onus is on you to present the facts correctly and completely. Your inability to do this means that your claims are unfounded. You have no
proof. It's only one datapoint.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Jan 8, 2026 at 3:15:50rC>PM EST, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

The onus is on you to present the facts correctly and completely.

Which he NEVER does. Because troll.

Your inability to do this means that your claims are unfounded.

As are ALL of his CLAIMS. Because troll.

You have no proof. It's only one datapoint.

That's all he EVER has. His OPINION. Because troll.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2