Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Samsung account
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:55:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <usvdml$28tp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <86il1qmd9v.fsf@example.com>   <key-20240313175812@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <ussp0e$2cg2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <ust0b3$149uv$1@dont-email.me> <86y1allws2.fsf@example.com> <ust2v7$14rfd$1@dont-email.me> <86ttl9luim.fsf@example.com> <ust5ik$15eve$1@dont-email.me> <ust9q9$2gae$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <ustdd7$1772n$1@dont-email.me> <uste5e$1u6h$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <ustfr7$17lrr$1@dont-email.me> <ustgds$2u3r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <usv7q2.f50.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:55:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="74681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0+S/Ls9ScT5hLYKzGL8nEzAEtwg= sha256:U1HssDRzH7jhL53uN/ynru1lWYD8QKVMDiylR2c7LKU=
	sha1:hMdUbrG20OE738V+O9tFxJNABJk= sha256:8YV1hx49oZrl0r8HjCoPp8tfRkkeflDJpQRhrEZZxqk=
Bytes: 5442
Lines: 93

Frank Slootweg wrote on 14 Mar 2024 15:15:08 GMT :

>   Face it, as AJL hints at, that information is just on a *different*
> server - than Samsung's, Google's, etc. ad infinitum - over which you
> *also* have *absolutely no* control.

I am nothing but logical, Frank. Hence I agree with your main premise.
Only a fool disagrees with a sensible logical premise. And I'm no fool.

Hence, you are correct. But you extended it too much.
As did AJL. 

What AJL said, in essence, was 
A. They already got him.
B. So he just gave up.
C. *And in doing so, he make it WORSE by putting it on his phone*!

That's OK for some people like you and for AJL.
But that's not OK for me.

I don't give up - I just fight back differently.
You give up. AJL gives up. I fight back differently.

Your mistake isn't in your initial logic.
It's in extending that initial logic to your cell phone.

Don't do that.
Specifically, Don't extend the threat to your vulnerable phone!

1. Your data that the bank holds is definitely subject to hacks
2. But they pay people a lot of money to mitigate that risk
3. Your cell phone has NONE of those IT people mitigating risk
   (All your cell phone has for an IT person, is little ole' you.)

If you think I'm not aware of all that, then it's you who is dreaming.

There's nothing wrong with your logic at the top level, since EVERY
database WILL (likely) be hacked (eventually) but what's wrong with your
argument is EXTENDING it naively to the smart phone.

Which has no IT department defending it.

Your argument is essentially only 1/2 of mine, which is:
A. You say every database will (likely) be hacked (which I agree), 
B. And then (because of that) you extend it to the phone (which I don't).

You're thinking correctly - but you're extending too far.
I don't put anything on the phone that I can't easily lose.
1. No accounts.
2. No login apps (e.g., banks, credit cards, nothing)
3. No way of paying for anything (accidental payment is disabled)
4. No way of logging into anything automatically

(Of course, I have web browsers, which "can" log into stuff; 
but I don't log into anything on the phone that I can think of.)

Hell, I don't even have a PIN on my phone (I don't live in a slum).
I keep the phone as a private citadel.
Sort of like how landline telephones were in the olden days.

The only thing they know is the stuff I can't change.
a. the phone number, make/model, carrier, IMEI, etc.
b. the IP address when on cellular
c. I do change my broadcasts to NOT shout out my hidden SSIDs
etc.

I consciously feed everything bogus data if it asks for such things.

It's why (almost) NOBODY gets my SSN (not even the state I live in when I
signed up for my drivers license from another state - where I said I never
had a drivers license and so I had to start the entire process anew, like a
17 year old kid would - simply because I wanted to give them a bogus SSN).

The only people who get "correct" ID information are people who 
a) will check it (e.g., passport information), or, 
b) people who need it (e.g., my federal taxes), or, 
c) people who need it by law (e.g., police, fire, etc.).

(Even 911 location though is disabled.)

I've been privacy aware for a long time, which is why I maintain separate
email accounts for people who ask but who don't need it, and even then,
since they're protonmail, I always enter via a tor browser every time.

Anyway, the number of privacy things I do on a phone will number probably
in the scores to nearly a hundred (or whatever it is), which is about 99
more things than you or AJL can comprehend so it's no use explaining to
you.

In summary, you are correct in overall logic but wrong in implementation.
1. You are completely correct that data someone else holds is hackable.
2. But you went too far as to give up when it comes to protecting the phone

Your mistake isn't in the logic but in the implementation.