Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!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: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:12:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v83gr9$2g47$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <leto4eFasrbU6@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> <lg4b64FbavdU3@mid.individual.net> <v7j3kt$1t9s$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lg95eqF3eteU1@mid.individual.net> <v7op3l$c3q$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lghtbaFpls7U2@mid.individual.net> <v80fn2$2nqsm$3@dont-email.me> <lgi05rFpls7U6@mid.individual.net> <v81p3k$mhc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lgk8tbF63ivU3@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:12:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="82055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zwANJfhvRdL16rXMMAvVbjZcLXE= sha256:xuudTlklV9OYni5sIk+W/IiFBHgoCYjzdr7+72YDBIs=
	sha1:4SmLIyYHYM2Gr9mbwJ/zVz5eGV0= sha256:0aQmzpkOgIvirnNdadFlkRLQLEtRvrIfB3jotvq4YeM=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 3782
Lines: 41

Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:53:02 +0200 :

>> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
>> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
>> 
>> Think about that.
> 
> That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
> access information on it.
> 
> And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
> this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
>> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
>> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>> 
>> Me?
>> 
>> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
> 
> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
> because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
> on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
> only once a week would make no sense at all to me.

Hi Arno,
Let's give up as you're not stupid but you're not getting the point about
unlocking a phone 1000 times versus only unlocking that same phone once.

I get it you use file system encryption, and I get it that you consider the
entire phone to be private data - so for you, unlocking it 1000 times is a
worthwhile tradeoff to my unlocking of my phone only once for your
thousand.

Let's just leave it at that, as people can disagree on philosophy as long
as they don't disagree on the facts.

For every thousand times you unlock your phone, I unlock mine once.
I consider my method efficient and your method inefficient.
You consider my method inefficient and your method efficient.

And that's OK.
As long as we agree on the facts, that's all that matters.