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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk4pdg$3jave$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145422 |
On 2024-12-20 12:47, Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:15:53 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote >>> Given the US is only about half Android and yet the world is >>> overwhelmingly >>> Android, we all need to keep in mind Apple's vaunted "walled garden" >>> doesn't work unless you have constant 24/7/365 Internet access which >>> most >>> of the world may not necessarily have. >> >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to >> the internet or not. > > How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net? Occasionally logging in to install an app isn't the same as the "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" claim... ...now is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9577fbef84ee82a2b1695cf1d2cbb6a837024dc0@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145428 |
Using <news:vk4pdg$3jave$4@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: >> How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net? > > Occasionally logging in to install an app isn't the same as the > "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" claim... Log out of Apple messages, facetime, app store, iCloud etc and tell us how good Apple's walled garden apps work without being logged into its servers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 17:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk5500$3ml19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145435 |
On 2024-12-20 17:04, david wrote: > Using <news:vk4pdg$3jave$4@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>> How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the >>> net? >> >> Occasionally logging in to install an app isn't the same as the >> "constant 24/7/365 Internet access" claim... > > Log out of Apple messages, facetime, app store, iCloud etc and tell us how > good Apple's walled garden apps work without being logged into its servers. I know how well it works. And it works fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0fd5088e37197905d7710fda713c940506140e3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145437 |
Using <news:vk5500$3ml19$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: >> Log out of Apple messages, facetime, app store, iCloud etc and tell us how >> good Apple's walled garden apps work without being logged into its servers. > > I know how well it works. > > And it works fine. Everyone knows Apple's walled garden requires logging into it in order to work. Except you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk58ah$3nphf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145445 |
On 2024-12-20 18:13, david wrote: > Using <news:vk5500$3ml19$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>> Log out of Apple messages, facetime, app store, iCloud etc and tell >>> us how >>> good Apple's walled garden apps work without being logged into its >>> servers. >> >> I know how well it works. >> >> And it works fine. > > Everyone knows Apple's walled garden requires logging into it in order to > work. Except you. I'm sorry, but YOU are wrong. Tell me specific things you think I can't do... ...that don't naturally require internet access... ...and I'll start posting screenshots of me doing them. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c57e1c3f74fd6a3740fe8e7472f57b92df3684bf@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145447 |
Using <news:vk58ah$3nphf$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > Tell me specific things you think I can't do... > > ...that don't naturally require internet access... This lying idiot doesn't even know the difference between being on the internet & logging into a specific walled-garden account on Apple servers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 18:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk5ad4$3o50u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145450 |
On 2024-12-20 18:45, david wrote: > Using <news:vk58ah$3nphf$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >> Tell me specific things you think I can't do... >> >> ...that don't naturally require internet access... > > This lying idiot doesn't even know the difference between being on the > internet & logging into a specific walled-garden account on Apple servers. I've made you a specific challenge, doofus. Tell me what on my phone is suppose to stop working if I turn off the WiFi and mobile data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | david <this@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd1f8f540bc6a90e6cfd124da17d72b059092ccb@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #145451 |
Using <news:vk5ad4$3o50u$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: >>> Tell me specific things you think I can't do... >>> >>> ...that don't naturally require internet access... >> >> This lying idiot doesn't even know the difference between being on the >> internet & logging into a specific walled-garden account on Apple servers. > > I've made you a specific challenge, doofus. > > Tell me what on my phone is suppose to stop working if I turn off the > WiFi and mobile data. You're the lying idiot who doesn't even realize the obvious difference between being on the Internet versus logging into a specific Apple account. Log out of all your Apple accounts and then try to use the walled garden. You can't. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 19:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk5ba3$3o50u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145453 |
On 2024-12-20 18:54, david wrote: > Using <news:vk5ad4$3o50u$1@dont-email.me>, Alan wrote: > >>>> Tell me specific things you think I can't do... >>>> >>>> ...that don't naturally require internet access... >>> >>> This lying idiot doesn't even know the difference between being on the >>> internet & logging into a specific walled-garden account on Apple >>> servers. >> >> I've made you a specific challenge, doofus. >> >> Tell me what on my phone is suppose to stop working if I turn off the >> WiFi and mobile data. > > You're the lying idiot who doesn't even realize the obvious difference > between being on the Internet versus logging into a specific Apple account. > Log out of all your Apple accounts and then try to use the walled garden. > You can't. Idiot. No. I understand the difference quite clearly. But it is SIMPLER for me to turn off my internet access. You DO understand that if I have no internet access on the phone, then my phone CANNOT be communicating with Apple's servers, correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso7n0Fo80oU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145422 |
Oliver, 2024-12-20 21:47: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:15:53 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote > >>> Given the US is only about half Android and yet the world is overwhelmingly >>> Android, we all need to keep in mind Apple's vaunted "walled garden" >>> doesn't work unless you have constant 24/7/365 Internet access which most >>> of the world may not necessarily have. >> >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the >> internet or not. > > How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net? By using alternative app stores. Even Apple *must* provide this nowadays in some regions. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk7b4b$1spq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145491 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:12:18 +0100 : >>> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the >>> internet or not. >> >> How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net? > > By using alternative app stores. Even Apple *must* provide this nowadays > in some regions. Yes. Only recently. And there are almost no apps. But this is correct because the EU forced Apple to care about its customers for once. But even so, without initializing an Apple device on Apple's servers, it can't do anything - not even make phone calls. Don't believe me? Try it. a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call What do you think happens?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk7b90$6o2d$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145521 |
On 2024-12-21 13:14, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:12:18 +0100 : > >>>> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to >>>> the internet or not. >>> >>> How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the >>> net? >> >> By using alternative app stores. Even Apple *must* provide this nowadays >> in some regions. > > Yes. Only recently. And there are almost no apps. But this is correct > because the EU forced Apple to care about its customers for once. > > But even so, without initializing an Apple device on Apple's servers, it > can't do anything - not even make phone calls. > > Don't believe me? > Try it. > > a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it > b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER > c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call > > What do you think happens? 'Finally, click on Don’t use to confirm, and you will be able to set up iPhone without Apple ID.' <https://www.imobie.com/iphone-unlocker/set-up-iphone-without-apple-id.htm>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsun82Fpk7mU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145521 |
Andrew, 2024-12-21 22:14: [...] > a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it > b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER > c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call > > What do you think happens? The phone call works. BTDT -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vknmt5$2kck$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145567 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:14:10 +0100 : >> a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it >> b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER >> c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call >> >> What do you think happens? > > The phone call works. BTDT Nope. Try it. Buy a new iPhone. Don't initialize it. Tell us what happens. Only Apple requires you to initialize on their mainframe servers, Arno. Nobody else. -- You can easily get around the Windows 11 requirements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vknnv9$3vksi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145712 |
On 2024-12-27 18:13, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:14:10 +0100 : > >>> a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it >>> b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER >>> c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call >>> >>> What do you think happens? >> >> The phone call works. BTDT > > Nope. Try it. Buy a new iPhone. Don't initialize it. Tell us what happens. Done. It works without ever so much as creating an Apple Account. > > Only Apple requires you to initialize on their mainframe servers, Arno. > > Nobody else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lta6kkFkj2qU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145712 |
Andrew, 2024-12-28 03:13: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:14:10 +0100 : > >>> a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it >>> b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER >>> c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call >>> >>> What do you think happens? >> >> The phone call works. BTDT > > Nope. Try it. Buy a new iPhone. Don't initialize it. Tell us what happens. As I said - you can use it for phone calls. You only need to "initialize" it when you want to use Apple services. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkp5q4.s7o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145717 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > Andrew, 2024-12-28 03:13: > > > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:14:10 +0100 : > > > >>> a. Buy a brand new iPhone & pop a valid known-working SIM card in it > >>> b. DO NOT EVER LOG INTO ANY APPLE SERVER > >>> c. Try to do something simple - anything - like make a phone call > >>> > >>> What do you think happens? > >> > >> The phone call works. BTDT > > > > Nope. Try it. Buy a new iPhone. Don't initialize it. Tell us what happens. > > As I said - you can use it for phone calls. You only need to > "initialize" it when you want to use Apple services. Yes, of course one can use an iPhone for phone calls (and SMS/MMS) without 'initializing' it with Apple (AppleID, etc.). If one couldn't, there would be no point donating 'old' iPhones to people in third world countries, etc..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkphp1$27rg$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145719 |
Frank Slootweg wrote on 28 Dec 2024 14:34:35 GMT : >> As I said - you can use it for phone calls. You only need to >> "initialize" it when you want to use Apple services. > > Yes, of course one can use an iPhone for phone calls (and SMS/MMS) > without 'initializing' it with Apple (AppleID, etc.). If one couldn't, > there would be no point donating 'old' iPhones to people in third world > countries, etc.. Frank, You are wrong. You are wrong because initializing/activating an iOS device has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Apple ID (aka Apple Account). None of you appear to UNDERSTAND there is a difference. Try this: a. Buy a brand new iPhone b. Try to use it (e.g., to make a phone call) You can't. First you have to "activate" (aka "initialize") it. Then you can make phone calls. Guess what you have to CONNECT to in order to activate/initialize it, Frank? Take a wild guess. Only *after* you've initialized/activated it, can you even begin to make the decision of whether or not you want to add an Apple Account to it. No other consumer platform requires the Internet just to begin to work. Apple murdered privacy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 11:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkpj9q$fsjb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145728 |
On 2024-12-28 10:58, Andrew wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote on 28 Dec 2024 14:34:35 GMT : > >>> As I said - you can use it for phone calls. You only need to >>> "initialize" it when you want to use Apple services. >> >> Yes, of course one can use an iPhone for phone calls (and SMS/MMS) >> without 'initializing' it with Apple (AppleID, etc.). If one couldn't, >> there would be no point donating 'old' iPhones to people in third world >> countries, etc.. > > Frank, > > You are wrong. > > You are wrong because initializing/activating an iOS device has NOTHING > whatsoever to do with the Apple ID (aka Apple Account). > > None of you appear to UNDERSTAND there is a difference. > > Try this: > a. Buy a brand new iPhone > b. Try to use it (e.g., to make a phone call) > > You can't. > > First you have to "activate" (aka "initialize") it. > Then you can make phone calls. > > Guess what you have to CONNECT to in order to activate/initialize it, > Frank? > > Take a wild guess. > > Only *after* you've initialized/activated it, can you even begin to make > the decision of whether or not you want to add an Apple Account to it. > > No other consumer platform requires the Internet just to begin to work. > > Apple murdered privacy. How does activation "murder privacy"? Does activation ask for any personal information? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkphi9$273c$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145717 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:44:21 +0100 : >> Nope. Try it. Buy a new iPhone. Don't initialize it. Tell us what happens. > > As I said - you can use it for phone calls. You only need to > "initialize" it when you want to use Apple services. No. You're wrong, Arno. Even the Apple trolls don't know this. You GUESSED what I said - you didn't UNDERSTAND what I said. You simply GUESSED. And you guessed wrong, Arno. Read what I had said. What I had said has NOTHING to do with an Apple ID. Again, read what I just said. It has NOTHING to do with an Apple Account. *I can tell you've _NEVER initialized_ an Apple device*, Arno. That's clear. You can NOT even make a phone call WITHOUT initializing (aka Activating) the brand new (or factory reset) device on Apple servers on the Internet. It's impossible. And again, this has NOTHING to do with the Apple Account (aka Apple ID). It's all about the device. Only Apple does that. Nobody else. Apple murdered privacy. -- The Win11 account is different & it can be worked around easily anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web