Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #142535 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-06 22:35 +0200 |
| Last post | 2024-07-08 17:25 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-06 22:35 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-06 21:40 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-07-06 23:47 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-06 23:34 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-07 13:02 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-07 13:43 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 09:23 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-07-07 20:51 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 11:55 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-07 18:58 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 12:02 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-08 20:38 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-12 15:41 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-12 21:48 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-12 15:39 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-14 15:25 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-15 08:35 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-20 16:38 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-20 16:26 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-20 11:29 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-21 13:53 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-21 13:49 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-23 09:46 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-23 17:26 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-26 17:23 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-26 08:34 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-26 18:11 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-27 03:21 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-27 14:53 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-27 11:46 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-27 19:12 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-27 12:51 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-27 18:46 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-27 18:51 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-27 20:33 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-27 22:24 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-28 19:34 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2024-07-28 22:01 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 07:07 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2024-07-29 08:48 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 11:47 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-29 13:12 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 21:26 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-29 21:48 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 21:52 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-29 22:15 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-06 19:59 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-08-06 12:11 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-10 10:09 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-08-10 10:49 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-08-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-13 17:18 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-08-13 21:14 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-14 00:29 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-08-14 07:46 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-08-14 07:54 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-17 13:18 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-08-19 07:33 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-19 10:05 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-19 16:04 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-19 22:06 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-20 09:29 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-20 16:54 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-21 17:47 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-17 13:14 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-08-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-08-10 14:03 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-08-13 17:15 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-07-28 08:42 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-29 11:40 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-07-29 12:47 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-06 19:57 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-08-06 19:53 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-08-10 14:07 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-27 11:46 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-07-20 22:29 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-21 00:02 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-20 17:39 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-07-21 13:54 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-08 20:44 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-08 13:50 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-09 13:07 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-09 13:16 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-09 09:16 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-07-09 18:38 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-07-09 17:46 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-07-09 18:51 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-09 10:52 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-07-10 09:10 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-10 11:41 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-07-10 21:05 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-10 13:07 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-09 10:51 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-07-10 09:06 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-10 11:44 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-09 22:07 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-10 19:46 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-10 13:09 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-12 15:52 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-12 21:46 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-12 15:37 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 18:02 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-08 02:58 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-08 02:08 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-08 12:42 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-08 09:05 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-08 22:10 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-08 19:55 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-08 13:49 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-08 09:04 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-08 11:48 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-07-07 20:09 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-07-07 19:12 +0100
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-07 18:51 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-07-07 21:04 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-07-07 20:31 +0000
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-07-07 14:17 -0700
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-07-07 22:43 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-07-08 16:33 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-07-08 17:35 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> - 2024-07-10 12:26 -0600
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-07-08 16:49 +0200
Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-07-08 17:25 +0200
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v7gvlf$3ld8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #142906 |
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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 13:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lg4b64FbavdU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #142906 |
Andrew, 2024-07-20 18:26: > 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 I do the same. And I use my phone daily and also as 2FA for a number of accounts. And *because* it is also used for 2FA I need some kind of protection. > 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. If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it safe without any kind of lock. >>> 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. Define "safeguarding". [...] >> 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. SMS is also not good for privacy. SS7 was already compromised 10 years ago: <https://www.firstpoint-mg.com/blog/ss7-attack-guide/> [...] > 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? No. MMS uses data transmission and requires a data plan. Without a data plan, MMS gets *very* expensive since data is then charge by its amount where even 1 MB of data can cost more than 1 USD. [...] >> "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. This is what I call "do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers" - because an encrypted container is not "storing data on the phone. An encrypted container can not be used to choose a person to call in the phone app and you can also not see any calendar entries or send/recieve messages this way. Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already have personal data on the phone. > 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. Android will *encrypt* all data on the device and if you use a lock procedure *nobody* can access the data on the device storage at all. Only very old devices (older than 4-5 years) may not support that. > 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. Why "a dozen padlocks"? One lock is enough. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v7j3kt$1t9s$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #142913 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 13:53:41 +0200 : >> My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for... >> a. Daily use >> b. Backup & restore >> c. Privacy > > I do the same. And I use my phone daily and also as 2FA for a number of > accounts. And *because* it is also used for 2FA I need some kind of > protection. Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws. But then again, my phone can't do financial transactions (again, because it's set up with a plan in mind - and that plan includes security). Philosophically, I set up my phone for a. Efficient constant use (i.e., no lock screens), and, b. All my important data is secure and easily backed up, and, c. Everything I do on the phone is designed to be done with privacy. >> And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up. > > If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it safe > without any kind of lock. Huh? I have plenty of personal data on my phone in encrypted containers. Most people lock their phone because they don't use encrypted containers. They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure. That's why people who don't know anything about phones, lock them up. It's sad so many people live in the scary slums, figuratively speaking. >> 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. > > Define "safeguarding". Well, I could write a lot about safeguarding because what's different about me is I'm not clueless like every person who locks their phone is clueless. For one thing, it means never using "the cloud" for my data, and for another it means never installing apps which require a login/password when they don't need a login/password, but it also means extending the safety of my data to keeping private data in their own locations, in encrypted file containers, and in securing passwords on the phone in Keepass2Android. Most people have no clue the contacts (by default) are stored in a contacts sqlite database on Android - where mine is always kept completely empty. This is what I mean by people who don't know how to use phones, lock them. It's a thousand more things, Arno - all of which is why I can safely make the observation that people who lock their phones don't know technology. They live in abject fear of everyone around them - which - is kind of sad. >> 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. > > SMS is also not good for privacy. SS7 was already compromised 10 years ago: > <https://www.firstpoint-mg.com/blog/ss7-attack-guide/> I do not disagree that SMS texting can get you in trouble. Ask Tom Brady about that. :) (Although he apparently deleted his texts successfully, as far as I know.) >> 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? > > No. MMS uses data transmission and requires a data plan. Without a data > plan, MMS gets *very* expensive since data is then charge by its amount > where even 1 MB of data can cost more than 1 USD. The main point is simply that any messaging that requires a login/password to a specific Internet server is a metadata privacy hole by design. See above where "safeguarding" means not establishing those login/passwords for things that don't need to have a login/password on an Internet server. >>> "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. > > This is what I call "do not store *any* personal data on it, even no > phone numbers" - because an encrypted container is not "storing data on > the phone. An encrypted container can not be used to choose a person to > call in the phone app and you can also not see any calendar entries or > send/recieve messages this way. Huh? My contacts are NOT in the default sqlite file, on purpose. But I still have my contacts in each of my communication apps. I don't have to lock my phone just to keep my contacts private from Internet servers (which most people upload to without even knowing it). Even WhatsApp is used without contacts - since it doesn't need them (if you know how a phone works - which is why I say that anyone who locks their phone, I feel sorry for - because either they live in the slums, or, they don't know how to use computers). > Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already > have personal data on the phone. I'm actually surprised you don't understand how SMS is different from establishing a login/password on an additional Internet server, Arno. That's the problem Carlos had with his comprehension of technology. The difference in terms of privacy is huge - where I think the reason you don't understand how SMS differs from establishing a login/password on an Internet server is you equate SMS connection to the carrier to establishing a login/password on an Internet server. They're not the same. >> 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. > > Android will *encrypt* all data on the device and if you use a lock > procedure *nobody* can access the data on the device storage at all. > Only very old devices (older than 4-5 years) may not support that. Yeah. I know. I tried that. I don't like it. Although I tried it long ago when it first came out. I prefer encrypted file containers. Remember my analogy. You don't need to lock every window and door in the house and lock the chimney and lock the basement cellar door, etc. All you need to do is put your valuable jewelry in a locked safe. It's the same with Android. I feel sad for people who are so afraid of their wife & children that they feel they must lock their phone up so that nobody will steal their data. >> 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. > > Why "a dozen padlocks"? One lock is enough. The point is that I feel sorry for people who lock their phone because it means either they are afraid of every person around them, or they don't have a clue how a phone works (and probably, it's both of those things). BTW, I'm quite well aware why MARKETING wants all your data unlocked when you unlock your phone - as MARKETING is what leads the sheep to slaughter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-23 09:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lg95eqF3eteU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #142918 |
Andrew, 2024-07-21 15:49: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 13:53:41 +0200 : > >>> My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for... >>> a. Daily use >>> b. Backup & restore >>> c. Privacy >> >> I do the same. And I use my phone daily and also as 2FA for a number of >> accounts. And *because* it is also used for 2FA I need some kind of >> protection. > > Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable > people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws. What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific? [...]>> If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it safe >> without any kind of lock. > > Huh? I have plenty of personal data on my phone in encrypted containers. No, you have them in encrypted containers. The same container can be everywhere else as well. So it is not stored on the phone itself. [...] > Most people lock their phone because they don't use encrypted containers. Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security concept! > They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure. Bullshit! [...] >> No. MMS uses data transmission and requires a data plan. Without a data >> plan, MMS gets *very* expensive since data is then charge by its amount >> where even 1 MB of data can cost more than 1 USD. > > The main point is simply that any messaging that requires a login/password > to a specific Internet server is a metadata privacy hole by design. Which is not the case for many messaging apps. [...] >> This is what I call "do not store *any* personal data on it, even no >> phone numbers" - because an encrypted container is not "storing data on >> the phone. An encrypted container can not be used to choose a person to >> call in the phone app and you can also not see any calendar entries or >> send/recieve messages this way. > > Huh? My contacts are NOT in the default sqlite file, on purpose. You don't understand how Android storage works. There is no "default sqlite file" for contacts. > But I still have my contacts in each of my communication apps. Then you *have* data stored on your phone! And of course *those* contacts are *not* in "encrypted containers". > I don't have to lock my phone just to keep my contacts private from > Internet servers (which most people upload to without even knowing it). Enabling a screen lock has *nothing* to do with "keeping contacts private from internet servers"! > Even WhatsApp is used without contacts - since it doesn't need them > (if you know how a phone works - which is why I say that anyone who locks > their phone, I feel sorry for - because either they live in the slums, or, > they don't know how to use computers). That's one reasone why I don't use WhatsApp. >> Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already >> have personal data on the phone. > > I'm actually surprised you don't understand how SMS is different from > establishing a login/password on an additional Internet server, Arno. The SMS messages are personal data! And about my knowledge: I am a software developer who also maintains Android apps: <https://github.com/arnowelzel/> -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-23 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v7op3l$c3q$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #142946 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 : >> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable >> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws. > > What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific? I said privacy. You said security. The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing. >> Huh? I have plenty of personal data on my phone in encrypted containers. > > No, you have them in encrypted containers. The same container can be > everywhere else as well. So it is not stored on the phone itself. ah... um... er... huh? I maintain encrypted containers on the device. I used to use TrueCrypt but moved to VeraCrypt when everyone else did. The encrypted container is stored on the device itself. It's just a file on the device. >> Most people lock their phone because they don't use encrypted containers. > > Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data > partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security > concept! Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad. > >> They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure. > > Bullshit! I'm making a point by being dramatic that it's a sad thing that people have to feel that they have to lock their phone to keep it away from their own wife and kids and friends and neighbors. I think people who lock their phones either live in slums and therefore they need to put bars all over their phone - or they don't know how to use phones. There's no reason to lock your phone if you know how a phone works. >> The main point is simply that any messaging that requires a login/password >> to a specific Internet server is a metadata privacy hole by design. > > Which is not the case for many messaging apps. But which is the case for default messaging apps (on Android). >> Huh? My contacts are NOT in the default sqlite file, on purpose. > > You don't understand how Android storage works. There is no "default > sqlite file" for contacts. Huh? Maybe you need to look it up before you make that claim. Normally you're a smart guy so I hope you can back up that claim. There's ALWAYS a default contacts sqlite database. It's in different default locations depending on the OEM. But it's there somewhere. For example, there are tools to access that default sqlite db. <https://github.com/alejandrolopezparra/AndroidContactsDatabase-tools> If you deny that claim, then I'd be glad to learn from you. Where do YOU think your contacts are stored, by default? And where do you think SMS messages are stored, by default? >> But I still have my contacts in each of my communication apps. > > Then you *have* data stored on your phone! And of course *those* > contacts are *not* in "encrypted containers". Of course. However, they're just contacts. And, the main point is they're NEVER uploaded to someone else's servers (which you can't say for sure for the default sqlite contacts database which every nefarious apps wants). However.... to your point... you could lock your contacts app if you actually cared about that level of securing your contacts (which you might do if you lived in the slums or if you lived in abject fear of your wife). >> I don't have to lock my phone just to keep my contacts private from >> Internet servers (which most people upload to without even knowing it). > > Enabling a screen lock has *nothing* to do with "keeping contacts > private from internet servers"! True. This is a conversation so not every sentence has been vetted by my publicist and lawyer. The point is that if you put the contacts in the default sqlite location, then you can rest assured that every nefarious app knows where that is and if they want to, they grab it (e.g., GMail). Again (and again) it's my belief that people who store their contacts in the default sqlite database don't know how to use phones with privacy in mind. >> Even WhatsApp is used without contacts - since it doesn't need them >> (if you know how a phone works - which is why I say that anyone who locks >> their phone, I feel sorry for - because either they live in the slums, or, >> they don't know how to use computers). > > That's one reasone why I don't use WhatsApp. The reason I'm forced to use WhatsApp (without contacts, by the way), is that I have great grandchildren whose parents send videos via Apple Messages, but which are destroyed by the default gateway to Android messaging. Also, I have relatives in Munchen who, the young ones, are using WhatsApp almost exclusively, and the older ones I need Google Voice to reach. So I am forced to maintain: a. Google Voice (to call POTS lines overseas at a low cost) b. WhatsApp (to get clear videos & to reach the younger crowd overseas) c. PulseSMS (to text people in the USA) It's sad I have to do that. And I know how to use a phone. :) >>> Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already >>> have personal data on the phone. >> >> I'm actually surprised you don't understand how SMS is different from >> establishing a login/password on an additional Internet server, Arno. > > The SMS messages are personal data! While I fully agree that SMS messages are "personal data", I'm more worried about someone vacuuming up my metadata to use for nefarious purposes. > And about my knowledge: I am a software developer who also maintains > Android apps: > > <https://github.com/arnowelzel/> I respect that you are a developer. I published tutorials on this newsgroup for using Android Studio but I've never written an app from scratch myself. I wrote in IBM Assembly Language on the IBM 360 in the seventies, and in the eighties I wire wrapped my own Motorola 68701 micro controllers and in the nineties I bootstrapped PDP 11 university machines, graduating to the DEC VAX/VMS and then SunOS/Solaris machines well before Linux was a thing. My first language was Fortran before Fortran 77 even existed, and then I took PL/1 before C existed and I took COBOL (which is a crazy language). After COBOL, I gave up on programming. I was burned out. They all do the same thing with different syntax. :) I respect your acumen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-26 17:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lghtbaFpls7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #142954 |
Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 : > >>> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable >>> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws. >> >> What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific? > > I said privacy. You said security. > The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing. What "privacy flaw" are you talking about? [...] >> Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data >> partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security >> concept! > > Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of > lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. > > I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. > Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad. I give up - you don't get it. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-26 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v80fn2$2nqsm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143008 |
On 2024-07-26 08:23, Arno Welzel wrote: > Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26: > >> Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 : >> >>>> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable >>>> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws. >>> >>> What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific? >> >> I said privacy. You said security. >> The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing. > > What "privacy flaw" are you talking about? > > [...] >>> Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data >>> partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security >>> concept! >> >> Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of >> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. >> >> I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. >> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad. > > I give up - you don't get it. It's hilarious. He talks about people who lock their phones living in "slums"... ...but those who lock the data ON their phones are perfectly normal! LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-26 18:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lgi05rFpls7U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143010 |
Alan, 2024-07-26 17:34: > On 2024-07-26 08:23, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26: [...] >>> Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of >>> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. >>> >>> I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. >>> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad. >> >> I give up - you don't get it. > > It's hilarious. > > He talks about people who lock their phones living in "slums"... > > ...but those who lock the data ON their phones are perfectly normal! > > LOL Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 03:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v81p3k$mhc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #143015 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 : > Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also > requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption > would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be > completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone. You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing. 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. It's a hundred to one. Maybe five hundred to a thousand to one. 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. If you don't understand the concept by now, you never will. So we may as well give up. You'll never convince me that unlocking a phone a thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need your data unlocked. And I'm never going to convince you that NOT unlocking your phone a thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need to. If you don't get it by now, you never will. And that's OK. Some people enjoy being inefficient. It makes them feel better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 14:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lgk8tbF63ivU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143018 |
Andrew, 2024-07-27 05:21: > Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 : > >> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also >> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption >> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be >> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone. > > You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing. > > 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. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v83fam$3a096$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143022 |
On 2024-07-27 05:53, Arno Welzel wrote: > Andrew, 2024-07-27 05:21: > >> Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 : >> >>> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also >>> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption >>> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be >>> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone. >> >> You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing. >> >> 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. > > Exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v83gr9$2g47$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #143022 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v83j4p$3gnr9$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143026 |
On 2024-07-27 12:12, Andrew wrote: > 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. You're doing what you always do: focusing on something that is in reality trivial and making it the hill you want to die on. Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone... ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v847t5$3ocqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143027 |
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>
> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>
> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
--
Cheers, Bev
All bleeding eventually stops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v8487a$3obga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143029 |
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote: > On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote: >> >> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone... >> >> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so? > > If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about > half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every > time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes. > If it unlocks before you can even do anything? My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 20:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v84e6u$3p9vj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143030 |
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>
>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>
>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
>> half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
>> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
>
> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
around that.
> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
--
Cheers, Bev
Horn broken. Watch for finger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-27 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v84kmv$3q6ec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143031 |
On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote: > On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote: >>>> >>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone... >>>> >>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so? >>> >>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning >>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do >>> it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after >>> 2 minutes. >> >> If it unlocks before you can even do anything? > > It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way > around that. I'm sorry, but I want to understand: Pushing a button... ...is "annoying"? > >> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen. > > After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to > trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble > with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No. You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-28 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v86v4m$abth$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143032 |
On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>>
>>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do
>>>> it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after
>>>> 2 minutes.
>>>
>>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>>
>> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
>> around that.
>
> I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
>
> Pushing a button...
>
> ...is "annoying"?
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the little
plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer reaches the
switch. I can only assume wear. I don't want to replace my phone
because of something stupid like that. I can take the tablet apart, but
the phone needs to be glued. No.
>>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>>
>> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
>> trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
>> with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
>
> You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
Rotate phone.
Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the case..
[tap/touch finger-sensor]
Re-position the camera.
Tap the circle.
Butterfly gone.
Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
good musicians. Also causes problems with object manipulation.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-28 22:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v877mi$bhk3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143044 |
On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote: > My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the > little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer > reaches the switch. I can only assume wear. One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved). So no need to use its switch in everyday use. > I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like > that. My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch. This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help with your switch paranoia... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-29 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v887mk$grg3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143045 |
On 7/28/24 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
>> little plastic actuator that actually pushes the switch no longer
>> reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
>
> One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
> So no need to use its switch in everyday use.
That means leaving it on when I'm not using it, which I don't like to do
-- especially since I use it only once in a couple of months.
>> I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
>> that.
>
> My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
> screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.
>
> This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
> device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
> with your switch paranoia... ;)
I chose the Pixel2 because of the camera quality (and the price, of
course), which is what I mostly use it for. Nonetheless, I will take
your counsel under advisement.
--
Cheers, Bev
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down
alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for
new vocabulary." --James D. Nicoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web