> You can't without enabling Location Services. If you could, that would be a huge security hole because users can only disable Location Services and not CoreLocation.
You are right. I was looking in the disassembly of CoreLocation and misread where the controls for this were (and what they were named in the UI)–see below. Sorry about that.
> In order to not send your location to Apple, you have to leave the network off.
There's a bunch of toggles to switch off sending location data to Apple, specifically, in the Location Services settings page. So you can have Location Services on but not send anything to Apple, unless the app does so itself.
> The location will be stored on the device and synced to Apple later if not.
From the code, it seemed like this was for syncing frequent locations (which is end-to-end encrypted).
> They'll get a phone that they are in control of instead.
I am assuming you're claiming this is an Android device?
> I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your mitigation is using an equally ridiculous description.
You're really not; you're coming in, whether you're serious or not, with the argument that iPhones are "dumb", which is not useful or even related to the point. Countering my "ridiculous mitigation" (which I have not even described as a mitigation, mind you; I was just pointing out that you can get data from GPS without sending anything to Apple; if anything the "mitigation" I will point you to now is the set of switches that I mentioned before) with another one just does not help keep this conversation on track. It's quite literally flamebait.