Thats not what I said. You are implying I made a much stronger statement. -- ME2
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]>wrote: > I understand that. The previous poster's assertion was that Apple was > guilty for choosing AT&T. I'm saying that every major phone maker also uses > AT&T and are just as guilty by that logic. It's kind of like saying that > you chose Bank X, and then Bank X had a website problem that exposed your > personal information; you are therefore as guilty as Bank X because you > chose them. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jay Dale [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:55 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: AT&T/iPad security breach > > Apparently it targeted only IPad’s based upon the ICC-IDs of the > devices. So in essence, the target was through AT&T focused on IPads, and > geared towards capturing the email information of A-Listers who would be > getting the device sooner than the general public. > > > > Wouldn’t be surprised if it were an inside job.** > > > > *Jay Dale* > > I.T. Manager, 3GiG > > Mobile: 713.299.2541 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, including any attached files, may > contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the > intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail and > attachments, if any, or the information contained herein, is strictly > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive > information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply > e-mail and delete all copies of this message. > > > > > > *From:* Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:50 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: AT&T/iPad security breach > > > > By that rationale, everyone that offers a phone for AT&T is guilty of a > security lapse. That would be, well, everybody, right? > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:40 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: AT&T/iPad security breach > > Good question, but both really... It appears to be an AT&T breach, but > as you know it specifically effects the iPad. > > > > But, I beleive Apple fails here as well for he provider that they chose to > host thier equipment and services with. > > -- > ME2 > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Rod Trent <[email protected]> > wrote: > > iPad or AT&T? > > > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:20 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > > *Subject:* Re: AT&T/iPad security breach > > > > No doubt. It was pre-destined to be a major target. > > -- > ME2 > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Don Guyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Only a matter of time, no shock there. > > > > Don Guyer > > Systems Engineer - Information Services > > Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group > > 431 W. Lancaster Avenue > > Devon, PA 19333 > > Direct: (610) 993-3299 > > Fax: (610) 650-5306 > > [email protected] > > > > *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:57 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* AT&T/iPad security breach > > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=ipad+security+breach > > -- > ME2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
