I'm referring to your claim that he would have used a different credit card and ID as if this is obviously true. It's neither true nor obvious since he didn't realize by his own admission that the accounts were linked.
You're misunderstanding the entire point of my comment. I was specifically addressing the assertion that Popescu would have used a different card for the other account if he were trying to commit fraud: "If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc."
This claim is untrue. Per Popescu's blog, he didn't know using the same bank/CC info would link the accounts. So no, he likely wouldn't have used a different card. So the implication that because he didn't use a different card, he therefore wasn't trying to commit fraud is invalid.
The reference to Apple being dumb was merely for comparison.
I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense. It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person, even though they have a different name etc., not that Apple would be unable to see the common bank info.
> It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious.
It's clearly not obvious to Popescu per his own statement on the matter. Asserting repeatedly that it's obvious doesn't make it so.
> Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person
This is a distinction without a difference. "Linking" the accounts is pointless unless it creates a meaningful relationship between them. The only reason to link accounts is to establish that they be somehow treated as a unit.
You are claiming that Popescu does not understand that handing his credit card info over to Apple for the other account, amongst other things, would reveal to Apple that he has a connection with it. That is an absurd claim.
Your evidence is his statement, which refers to a more specific technical use of the term "linking", namely responsibility for fraud as a combined "legal entity", the phrase that is used in the cited phone call. I will let the downvotes on your comment speak for themselves here.
I'm making the much more charitable claim that he didn't realize Apple would track the connection between the accounts. This is in line with both his actions and his statements. Your continued attempts to force your specific narrow interpretation onto his statement is absurd.
Your appeal to downvotes as some form of proof that your interpretation is correct is also absurd, partly because downvotes don't mean that much in general, but mostly because I have exactly one in total. So as with the rest of the thread your self-satisfaction seems rather unjustified.
