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 | 11 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 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 16:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsqqq2F6dupU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145363 |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: > On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and > Android exist. <https://signal.org/> -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk9d00$17ete$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145536 |
On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: > >> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >> Android exist. > > <https://signal.org/> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public education. -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk9fv1$17h4i$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145537 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >> >>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>> Android exist. >> >> <https://signal.org/> > > Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en > > Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in > Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public > education. > > Couldn’t they have come up with an easier name to pronounce than that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsunc0Fpk7mU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145537 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: > On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >> >>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>> Android exist. >> >> <https://signal.org/> > > Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en > > Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in > Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public > education. Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 07:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vkdjac$1mop8$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145569 |
On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: > >> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> >>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>> Android exist. >>> >>> <https://signal.org/> >> >> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >> >> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >> education. > > Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. Idiot. Merry Christmas. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsvo9dF4l5U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145575 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-24 07:11: > On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: >> >>> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> >>>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>>> Android exist. >>>> >>>> <https://signal.org/> >>> >>> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >>> >>> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >>> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >>> education. >> >> Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. > > Idiot. Merry Christmas. Huh? <https://threema.ch> is not located in Switzerland? Or what do you mean? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 14:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gvnq3lxu5g.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145583 |
On 2024-12-24 13:38, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-24 07:11: > >> On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: >>> >>>> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>>>> Android exist. >>>>> >>>>> <https://signal.org/> >>>> >>>> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >>>> >>>> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >>>> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >>>> education. >>> >>> Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. >> >> Idiot. Merry Christmas. > > Huh? <https://threema.ch> is not located in Switzerland? Or what do you > mean? That you are implying that the Swiss use Threema simply because it is Swiss made, not because it is the only one that passed their security and privacy tests. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vkeeak$1n9b7$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145585 |
On 24.12.24 14:02, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-12-24 13:38, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-24 07:11: >> >>> On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: >>>> >>>>> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>>>>> Android exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://signal.org/> >>>>> >>>>> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >>>>> >>>>> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >>>>> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >>>>> education. >>>> >>>> Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. >>> >>> Idiot. Merry Christmas. >> >> Huh? <https://threema.ch> is not located in Switzerland? Or what do you >> mean? > > That you are implying that the Swiss use Threema simply because it is > Swiss made, not because it is the only one that passed their security > and privacy tests. Bingo! You got it! -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 18:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt2t5tFfd2mU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145585 |
Carlos E.R., 2024-12-24 14:02: > On 2024-12-24 13:38, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-24 07:11: >> >>> On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: >>>> >>>>> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>>>>> Android exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://signal.org/> >>>>> >>>>> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >>>>> >>>>> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >>>>> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >>>>> education. >>>> >>>> Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. >>> >>> Idiot. Merry Christmas. >> >> Huh? <https://threema.ch> is not located in Switzerland? Or what do you >> mean? > > That you are implying that the Swiss use Threema simply because it is > Swiss made, not because it is the only one that passed their security > and privacy tests. Well - "Swiss made" also means, they know the requirements for Swiss public institutions better then companies from the US or other countries. And even when companies from other countries provide the same level of security and privacy - still a Swiss company would be preferrable for Swiss public institutions, don't you think so? Signal or Matrix are not worse in this matter - but they are not Swiss companies. Also see: <https://element.io/case-studies/tchap> -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gn0u3lxi5o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145598 |
On 2024-12-25 18:19, Arno Welzel wrote: > Carlos E.R., 2024-12-24 14:02: > >> On 2024-12-24 13:38, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-24 07:11: >>> >>>> On 24.12.24 04:16, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 16:58: >>>>> >>>>>> On 22.12.24 16:50, s|b wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >>>>>>>> Android exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://signal.org/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signal and Threema: https://threema.ch/en >>>>>> >>>>>> Threema is the only messenger being accepted for public institutions in >>>>>> Switzerland. Particularly for law enforcement, military use and public >>>>>> education. >>>>> >>>>> Of course - Threema is provided by a Swiss company. >>>> >>>> Idiot. Merry Christmas. >>> >>> Huh? <https://threema.ch> is not located in Switzerland? Or what do you >>> mean? >> >> That you are implying that the Swiss use Threema simply because it is >> Swiss made, not because it is the only one that passed their security >> and privacy tests. > > Well - "Swiss made" also means, they know the requirements for Swiss > public institutions better then companies from the US or other > countries. And even when companies from other countries provide the same > level of security and privacy - still a Swiss company would be > preferrable for Swiss public institutions, don't you think so? No. > Signal or Matrix are not worse in this matter - but they are not Swiss > companies. No, this is not correct. In the subject of privacy and security, they are worse. At least Signal. It really is not about being Swiss. For example: An end-to-end encryption is used to ensure the confidentiality of WhatsApp. However, until recently, the automatic backup of the chats did not offer the same security, according to a statement by the SNSF. This is because the personal key to the data stored in the cloud was known to the company.Jul 30, 2023 WhatsApp security test identifies weakness - SWI swissinfo.ch <https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/whatsapp-security-test-identifies-weakness/48699806> <https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/rzjl7i/swiss_army_bans_whatsapp_telegram_and_signal_due/> "Threema relies on its own servers in Switzerland, while Signal uses US companies like Amazon and Google. So if you want to use a service whose servers are located in Europe, Threema does seem to be the only game in town. By the way, Threema is also subject to jurisdiction in Switzerland, and unlike Signal, the Swiss also complies with the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)." > > Also see: <https://element.io/case-studies/tchap> Ah, didn't know tchap. Yes, it is the same basic problem. > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt3m4hFj6f8U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145601 |
Carlos E.R., 2024-12-25 19:49: > On 2024-12-25 18:19, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >> Well - "Swiss made" also means, they know the requirements for Swiss >> public institutions better then companies from the US or other >> countries. And even when companies from other countries provide the same >> level of security and privacy - still a Swiss company would be >> preferrable for Swiss public institutions, don't you think so? > > No. > >> Signal or Matrix are not worse in this matter - but they are not Swiss >> companies. > > No, this is not correct. In the subject of privacy and security, they > are worse. At least Signal. > > It really is not about being Swiss. > > For example: > > An end-to-end encryption is used to ensure the confidentiality of > WhatsApp. However, until recently, the automatic backup of the chats did > not offer the same security, according to a statement by the SNSF. This > is because the personal key to the data stored in the cloud was known to > the company.Jul 30, 2023 > > WhatsApp security test identifies weakness - SWI swissinfo.ch > > <https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/whatsapp-security-test-identifies-weakness/48699806> What has WhatsApp to do with Matrix and Signal? > <https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/rzjl7i/swiss_army_bans_whatsapp_telegram_and_signal_due/> > > "Threema relies on its own servers in Switzerland, while Signal uses US > companies like Amazon and Google. So if you want to use a service whose > servers are located in Europe, Threema does seem to be the only game in > town. By the way, Threema is also subject to jurisdiction in > Switzerland, and unlike Signal, the Swiss also complies with the > provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)." Which just confirms my point: a Swiss company is preferrable for institutions in Switzerland for many reasons and not just because of technical ones. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web