Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #145304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 10:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-17 10:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 14:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-17 23:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 22:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 15:08 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:48 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-17 23:12 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 21:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 21:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:43 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 22:47 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-18 10:35 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:36 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 01:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:39 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 08:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 17:47 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 10:09 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 21:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:22 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 17:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:51 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:15 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 08:31 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:01 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 03:21 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:34 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 21:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:20 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 19:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 11:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:17 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 20:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:54 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:10 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 09:59 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:27 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 19:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-25 18:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:23 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 13:50 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 22:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 15:58 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 15:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:18 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:44 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-21 13:35 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 12:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-22 14:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 13:57 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:36 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-24 11:27 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:53 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:42 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:46 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 14:21 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:05 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:04 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:24 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:36 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:52 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 15:00 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2024-12-27 15:22 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 16:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 11:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-27 13:45 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:48 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:41 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:39 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:26 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 11:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 09:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 17:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:13 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:32 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 17:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 18:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:46 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 21:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 22:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:37 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 17:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:41 -0800
For the record and just the facts, an iPad without an AppleID (was Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:38 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> - 2024-12-20 13:47 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-20 22:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 14:00 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:45 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:54 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 19:05 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:14 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 02:13 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:44 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:24 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-29 02:51 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 19:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:50 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-31 19:19 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-18 08:22 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 00:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-21 08:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 00:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:13 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 08:59 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 09:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 11:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 10:53 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-18 18:55 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-17 18:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:50 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 16:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 07:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:38 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 14:02 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 14:52 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-25 19:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100 |
| Subject | RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI |
| Message-ID | <vjr55k$1cnf1$1@solani.org> |
Avoid to use RCS! It is not what it seems and it is insecure and does not respect your privacy. Elements that could make is safer are proprietary Google stuff. This is an advice from the FBI. By Jerry Hildenbrand published 3 days ago https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/fbi-warns-about-ios-android-messaging-security-threat-and-im-not-surprised? Texting still isn't safe. Normally, I'm quick to point out all the ways that Google shows a lack of respect for users inside its ecosystem. That's part of my job; if a Google exec scratches his or her butt, I need to see how it affects Google's portfolio and us since we're the ones using these products. That means I rarely worry about what other companies, like Apple, do to their users. This time is different because Apple's disdain for consumers and lack of cooperation puts us all at risk, according to the FBI, which usually knows what it is doing. I'm talking about RCS. Of course, I'm talking about RCS because it's been at least a month since I had to talk about RCS. Here's the deal: if you use an iPhone and message someone else who is using an iPhone, you're good. If you use an Android phone and message someone else using an Android phone, you're good, too. The problem is when an iPhone user messages an Android user or an Android user messages an iPhone user. Those messages, using the default messages app built into the phone, are no more secure than the old way of sending a text was. Apple did incorporate RCS messaging into iMessage, but it did it in a way that's not secure and didn't work with Google to sort it out. This happened because of RCS itself. The tech, in its current form, doesn't support any sort of encryption yet. It's being worked on, but if you implement RCS using only the current open standards, messages are no safer than they used to be. On the other hand, Google does offer encrypted RCS messaging — but only between two Android phones or the Chrome browser tied to an Android phone. It added this itself because RCS has no encryption method in place. Since about 80% of people worldwide who use a smartphone are using an Android smartphone, this was one of those times when Google did the right thing. Apple didn't. Apple offers iPhone users who talk to other iPhone users encryption and tells everyone else to just buy an iPhone. The FBI piping in to let everyone know there is a problem isn't unexpected. In fact, it's the opposite, and I'm surprised it took so long. I assumed exploits would pop up during the first week, just like spam and phishing messages supposedly from the post office did. You (probably) aren't special, and nobody is actively trying to steal your identity and hack your credit cards; they're just trying to steal everyone's identity and get everyone's credit card info. Casting a huge net is an easy way to scam regular people out of millions each year. Apple and Google could have, and should have, prevented this. Instead, Google was worried about tossing barbs at Apple and then taking a victory lap even when it didn't really get what it was demanding. Meanwhile, Apple trudged along and did nothing until China said they had to add RCS capabilities. Apple will always try to appease China when it's easy to do it, just like Google would. Neither side cared about working together to help consumers like us because we were going to buy their shit anyway. 💰🐄 So what should you do? If you live outside the U.S. or Canada, you probably don't have to do anything because you likely don't even use Google Messages or iMessage. People here use them because texts are free, and, well, we just do. If you use either, you should stop and switch to a secure and encrypted platform like the FBI says. There are plenty, but I'm partial to Signal because the people behind it only care about making a secure messaging service; they want to hook you on their product by making it great and not tying it to another service or looking to sell it off to Meta. That's easier said than done. You could go through all of your contacts and ask them to switch to another platform, but they're not going to do it. They don't think they need to do it because they might not have thousands in the bank sitting around ripe for the taking, or they don't think they have anything to hide. All you really can do is refuse to send any information through Google Messages or iMessage that you don't want the world to read and wish the companies that made these things actually cared about their users. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjrith$vr1r$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145304 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > Avoid to use RCS! It is not what it seems and it is insecure and does > not respect your privacy. Elements that could make is safer are > proprietary Google stuff. > > This is an advice from the FBI. > > > By Jerry Hildenbrand > published 3 days ago > > https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/fbi-warns-about-ios-android-messaging-security-threat-and-im-not-surprised? > > Texting still isn't safe. > > Normally, I'm quick to point out all the ways that Google shows a lack > of respect for users inside its ecosystem. That's part of my job; if a > Google exec scratches his or her butt, I need to see how it affects > Google's portfolio and us since we're the ones using these products. > > That means I rarely worry about what other companies, like Apple, do to > their users. This time is different because Apple's disdain for > consumers and lack of cooperation puts us all at risk, according to the > FBI, which usually knows what it is doing. > > I'm talking about RCS. Of course, I'm talking about RCS because it's > been at least a month since I had to talk about RCS. > > Here's the deal: if you use an iPhone and message someone else who is > using an iPhone, you're good. If you use an Android phone and message > someone else using an Android phone, you're good, too. The problem is > when an iPhone user messages an Android user or an Android user messages > an iPhone user. > > Those messages, using the default messages app built into the phone, are > no more secure than the old way of sending a text was. Apple did > incorporate RCS messaging into iMessage, but it did it in a way that's > not secure and didn't work with Google to sort it out. > > This happened because of RCS itself. The tech, in its current form, > doesn't support any sort of encryption yet. It's being worked on, but if > you implement RCS using only the current open standards, messages are no > safer than they used to be. > > On the other hand, Google does offer encrypted RCS messaging — but only > between two Android phones or the Chrome browser tied to an Android > phone. It added this itself because RCS has no encryption method in place. > > Since about 80% of people worldwide who use a smartphone are using an > Android smartphone, this was one of those times when Google did the > right thing. Apple didn't. Apple offers iPhone users who talk to other > iPhone users encryption and tells everyone else to just buy an iPhone. > > The FBI piping in to let everyone know there is a problem isn't > unexpected. In fact, it's the opposite, and I'm surprised it took so > long. I assumed exploits would pop up during the first week, just like > spam and phishing messages supposedly from the post office did. You > (probably) aren't special, and nobody is actively trying to steal your > identity and hack your credit cards; they're just trying to steal > everyone's identity and get everyone's credit card info. Casting a huge > net is an easy way to scam regular people out of millions each year. > > Apple and Google could have, and should have, prevented this. Instead, > Google was worried about tossing barbs at Apple and then taking a > victory lap even when it didn't really get what it was demanding. > Meanwhile, Apple trudged along and did nothing until China said they had > to add RCS capabilities. Apple will always try to appease China when > it's easy to do it, just like Google would. Neither side cared about > working together to help consumers like us because we were going to buy > their shit anyway. 💰🐄 > > So what should you do? If you live outside the U.S. or Canada, you > probably don't have to do anything because you likely don't even use > Google Messages or iMessage. People here use them because texts are > free, and, well, we just do. > > If you use either, you should stop and switch to a secure and encrypted > platform like the FBI says. There are plenty, but I'm partial to Signal > because the people behind it only care about making a secure messaging > service; they want to hook you on their product by making it great and > not tying it to another service or looking to sell it off to Meta. > > That's easier said than done. You could go through all of your contacts > and ask them to switch to another platform, but they're not going to do > it. They don't think they need to do it because they might not have > thousands in the bank sitting around ripe for the taking, or they don't > think they have anything to hide. > > All you really can do is refuse to send any information through Google > Messages or iMessage that you don't want the world to read and wish the > companies that made these things actually cared about their users. > > Considering the only other option is to use SMS there is no other option. I cannot tell another user to install a third party messaging app like WhatsApp or Signal otherwise they won’t receive messages from me. In this case both Apple and Google are at fault because neither will compromise for the good of the consumer. They are trying to protect their own kingdoms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lsd27jFrlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145304 |
Jörg Lorenz wrote: > void to use RCS! It is not what it seems I thought we already knew that cross-ecosystem was not encrypted?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjrsls$1d5pu$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145309 |
On 17.12.24 11:31, Andy Burns wrote: > Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >> void to use RCS! It is not what it seems > > I thought we already knew that cross-ecosystem was not encrypted? There is a lot more behind it. -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 23:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjsuot$v0h$1@news.chmurka.net> |
| In reply to | #145315 |
W Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:00:44 +0100, Jörg Lorenz napisal: >>> void to use RCS! It is not what it seems >> >> I thought we already knew that cross-ecosystem was not encrypted? > > There is a lot more behind it. Luckily for everyone, Jorg Lornz is just the right person to explain everything technical that you need to know about message encryption. Jorg: Please explain to everyone here what you know about this topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjsvn1$10hfb$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145359 |
Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote: > W Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:00:44 +0100, Jörg Lorenz napisal: > >>>> void to use RCS! It is not what it seems >>> >>> I thought we already knew that cross-ecosystem was not encrypted? >> >> There is a lot more behind it. > > Luckily for everyone, Jorg Lornz is just the right person to explain > everything technical that you need to know about message encryption. > > Jorg: Please explain to everyone here what you know about this topic. > LOL!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsqqhtF6dupU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145309 |
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:31:11 +0000, Andy Burns wrote: > I thought we already knew that cross-ecosystem was not encrypted? No worries then. (Reading this from comp.mobile.android.) -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 15:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p8d83lxd5u.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145304 |
On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > Avoid to use RCS! If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted says so. And we knew this. > It is not what it seems and it is insecure and does > not respect your privacy. Elements that could make is safer are > proprietary Google stuff. > > This is an advice from the FBI. > > > By Jerry Hildenbrand > published 3 days ago > > https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/fbi-warns-about-ios-android-messaging-security-threat-and-im-not-surprised? ... -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjs73v$1053j$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145316 |
On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> Avoid to use RCS! > > If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted > says so. You do not understand what happens. RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0ouo1z94jwdm6000@reader443.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #145320 |
Jörg Lorenz wrote: >Nobody needs it or wants it. The ghost of nospam is alive!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjt0he$1cel$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145323 |
badgolferman wrote on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:48:11 -0000 (UTC) : >>Nobody needs it or wants it. > > The ghost of nospam is alive! Hooray! The ghost of nospam has spoken! If it's something that Apple doesn't make money on, then... "nobody needs it" and "nobody wants it" Maybe Joerg Lorenz picked up nospam's contract to make senseless and literally inane excuses for why Apple products can't do what every other similar product does (which is proof enough that people want it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 21:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bb493lx0lp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145320 |
On 2024-12-17 16:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> Avoid to use RCS! >> >> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >> says so. > > You do not understand what happens. > RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. > We know you say that, and we also know this to be false. Don't worry about it :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjso49$1dnbl$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145352 |
On 17.12.24 21:42, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-12-17 16:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> Avoid to use RCS! >>> >>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>> says so. >> >> You do not understand what happens. >> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >> > > We know you say that, and we also know this to be false. Don't worry > about it :-) You comment is redundant. In this particular case the FBI is a lot more trustworthy than you will ever be. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 22:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6s793lxc7i.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145353 |
On 2024-12-17 21:49, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 17.12.24 21:42, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-12-17 16:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>> Avoid to use RCS! >>>> >>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>>> says so. >>> >>> You do not understand what happens. >>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >>> >> >> We know you say that, and we also know this to be false. Don't worry >> about it :-) > > You comment is redundant. In this particular case the FBI is a lot more > trustworthy than you will ever be. > The FBI doesn't contradict me at all. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjsrhu$1dpsm$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145356 |
On 17.12.24 22:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-12-17 21:49, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 17.12.24 21:42, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2024-12-17 16:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>>> Avoid to use RCS! >>>>> >>>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>>>> says so. >>>> >>>> You do not understand what happens. >>>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >>>> >>> >>> We know you say that, and we also know this to be false. Don't worry >>> about it :-) >> >> You comment is redundant. In this particular case the FBI is a lot more >> trustworthy than you will ever be. >> > > The FBI doesn't contradict me at all. They never will. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjuc1m.k7g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145356 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2024-12-17 21:49, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > > On 17.12.24 21:42, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2024-12-17 16:58, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >>> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >>>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >>>>> Avoid to use RCS! > >>>> > >>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted > >>>> says so. > >>> > >>> You do not understand what happens. > >>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. > >>> > >> > >> We know you say that, and we also know this to be false. Don't worry > >> about it :-) > > > > You comment is redundant. In this particular case the FBI is a lot more > > trustworthy than you will ever be. > > > > The FBI doesn't contradict me at all. Of course they don't. After all, you didn't give them permission to disagree with you, did you!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 00:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lseg87F71r1U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145320 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-17 16:58: > On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> Avoid to use RCS! >> >> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >> says so. > > You do not understand what happens. > RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. RCS works fine - much better than MMS ever was. Google just added a proprietary encryption to it. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 01:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hqg93lxoaa.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145364 |
On 2024-12-18 00:36, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-17 16:58: > >> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> Avoid to use RCS! >>> >>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>> says so. >> >> You do not understand what happens. >> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. > > RCS works fine - much better than MMS ever was. Google just added a > proprietary encryption to it. Proprietary, maybe, but they did not block Apple from using it. It was Apple who decided not even to try using it. Ok, it is not an standard, but it exists, it is there, ready to use. Just use, then agree into an standard, and implement it next. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 01:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjt953$cnq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145366 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 01:15:45 +0100 : >>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>>> says so. >>> >>> You do not understand what happens. >>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >> >> RCS works fine - much better than MMS ever was. Google just added a >> proprietary encryption to it. > > Proprietary, maybe, but they did not block Apple from using it. It was > Apple who decided not even to try using it. Ok, it is not an standard, > but it exists, it is there, ready to use. Just use, then agree into an > standard, and implement it next. The only reason RCS is in iPhones is the EU demanded Apple add it. RCS encryption isn't there only because the EU didn't demand that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 08:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0maa3lxnpe.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145370 |
On 2024-12-18 02:39, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 01:15:45 +0100 : > >>>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>>>> says so. >>>> >>>> You do not understand what happens. >>>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >>> >>> RCS works fine - much better than MMS ever was. Google just added a >>> proprietary encryption to it. >> >> Proprietary, maybe, but they did not block Apple from using it. It was >> Apple who decided not even to try using it. Ok, it is not an standard, >> but it exists, it is there, ready to use. Just use, then agree into an >> standard, and implement it next. > > The only reason RCS is in iPhones is the EU demanded Apple add it. > RCS encryption isn't there only because the EU didn't demand that too. The EU did not think Apple would be that stupid as to not implement it. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web