Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 11:29:03 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <v7gvlf$3ld8i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <leto4eFasrbU6@mid.individual.net>
 <v6cdk0$qnp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <letvsdFh2f2U1@mid.individual.net>
 <v6ck9o$2o45$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <levauqFmm0pU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v6e626$15id$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <v6efem$d3v6$2@dont-email.me> <lf06e6Fr6k6U2@mid.individual.net>
 <lf0rt7Fmm0pU8@mid.individual.net>
 <v6fhmo$2t3q$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <lf1u3tF4e6pU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v6hg7d$26q0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <lf2vdvF9ct8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <v6hint$2u54$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <ado7mkxb4o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <v6s8ak$1v1p$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <lfi1tuFi7p8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <v736m6$2a82$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <lg20eeFkfqU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v7goff$163n$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 20:29:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a8df2f33a827e4d3ec0354c3c52fd5ab";
	logging-data="3847442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Mf1J/VeHGT+es+DrGYcxA+6+N6OgY2TA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YEM1pdtpisjqHSSjaHIc+9FZTP8=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <v7goff$163n$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Bytes: 7135

On 2024-07-20 09:26, Andrew wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:08 +0200 :
> 
>>> There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
>>> abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point.
>>>
>>> If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
>>
>> A "proper setup" *is* locking it down by at least using a screen pattern
>> or PIN to protect it.
> 
> Philosophy being what it is, what matters more than anything is that a
> person who knows computers has a "plan" and a person who doesn't, doesn't.
> 
> My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
> a. Daily use
> b. Backup & restore
> c. Privacy
> 
> Most people have no plan whatsoever, where I would assume you know
> computers well enough to have a plan for those three things also.
> 
> Since most people have no plan at all, they have to lock it up.
> I don't have to lock it at all.
> 
> And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up.

You just lock it differently...

....so I guess you DO live in a slum, huh?

> 
>>> It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones.
>>
>> I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
>> computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
>> network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
> 
> I've been using computers since the 1970s, and I've built them from scratch
> (Motorola 68701) so I'm well aware that people have no plan for
> safeguarding their data which is why they're forced to lock them up.
> 
> Under that username/password they have no plan whatsoever for privacy.
> 
>>
>>> We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't
>>> talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device.
>>
>> Also for personal use devices I prefer to have at least basic protection.
> 
> All my personal data is locked up in encrypted containers on all computers.

Only people who live in slums need encryption.

> 
> 
>>> Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that
>>> an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.
>>
>> Only, if you do not use apps which *require* login/password - for
>> example for Google Pay you *must* enable some kind of lock screen. Also
>> for some bankinkg apps you *must* enable a lock screen.
> 
> Again, philosophically you have to set up your computer for privacy from
> the start, so, if you have Google Pay or Banking Apps, you need to lock
> _them_ up separately. Google doesn't design it that way but if you know how
> to use a computer, you will already know you can lock individual apps.
> 
> Only people who don't know anything about computers lock it up at the top.
>   
>>> It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work
>>> in that there is no Internet server login/password required for texting
>>> despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting.
>>
>> Yes, if you defined "texting" as "using SMS".
>> Even RCS already requires internet.
> 
> That was my question of you and Andy (as Carlos wouldn't know anything).
> If RCS or MLS require the Internet, then that's not good for privacy.
>   
>>> It's not.
>>> Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.
>>
>> No, only SMS works fine without any connection to the internet. And this
>> has nothing to do with "Android" but is a service in mobile networks.
>>
>> However "Android texting" may not only be SMS.
> 
> I guess you're right that MMS uses the "Internet" in a way that doesn't
> require a data plan. I assume that's what you're intimating above, Right?
> 
>>> We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data
>>> accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.
>>
>> "Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is only
>> true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers.
> 
> I keep my personal data in encrypted containers. It's not hard to do.
> I keep passwords in KeePassXC (Keepass2Android on the phone) too.
> 
> Philosophically, I think people who spread their data and logins about on
> the phone are the ones who are forced to lock up the phone at the top.
> 
> But locking the phone or computer at the top has efficiency penalties.
> 
> It's like keeping the wife's jewelry in the living room and kitchen so that
> you're forced to lock the front door with a dozen padlocks just because you
> don't know enough to put the jewelry in its own locked safe.

Is your front door unlocked when you're out?

> 
> The philosophical part about efficiency is:
> a. You go through the front door a lot
> b. You only have to open the safe infrequently
> 
> This is why I can argue with reasonable logic that anyone locking the
> computer or phone at the top level doesn't know how to use computers.
> 
> Or... they truly do live in the slums in abject fear of everyone around
> them (which is sad that they're that deathly afraid of people they love).