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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkpih3$fpnr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145727 |
On 2024-12-28 10:55, Andrew wrote: > 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. And now you've completely pivoted. Your initial claim was that you had to be logged into an Apple account "24/7/365".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-29 02:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ltbo9nFse1aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145727 |
Andrew, 2024-12-28 19:55: > 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. No, I tested it with a real device. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 19:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkqghd$p80c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145752 |
On 2024-12-28 17:51, Arno Welzel wrote: > Andrew, 2024-12-28 19:55: > >> 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. > > No, I tested it with a real device. > > > As did I.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl2aif$1eab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145752 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 29 Dec 2024 02:51:53 +0100 : >> 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. > > No, I tested it with a real device. It's impossible to initialize/activate an iOS device without connecting to Apple's mothership mainframe servers, Arno. Think about that fact before you make statements like that please. Remember, I know how iOS and Android work. You do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-31 19:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vl2c7a$2gljv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145975 |
On 2024-12-31 18:50, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 29 Dec 2024 02:51:53 +0100 : > >>> 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. >> >> No, I tested it with a real device. > > It's impossible to initialize/activate an iOS device without connecting to > Apple's mothership mainframe servers, Arno. > Which is not remotely the same thing as being connected "24/7/365"... > Think about that fact before you make statements like that please. > > Remember, I know how iOS and Android work. You do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ltltapFh41uU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145975 |
Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:50: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 29 Dec 2024 02:51:53 +0100 : > >>> 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. >> >> No, I tested it with a real device. > > It's impossible to initialize/activate an iOS device without connecting to > Apple's mothership mainframe servers, Arno. > > Think about that fact before you make statements like that please. I did. > Remember, I know how iOS and Android work. You do not. I do. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 08:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjtt7c$10upe$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145366 |
On 18.12.24 01:15, Carlos E.R. wrote: > 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. That is naive. Proprietary and encryption are a contradiction. And you do not seem to understand the powerplay of big tech. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 00:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vju0bu$27aaa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145374 |
On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 18.12.24 01:15, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> 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. > > That is naive. Proprietary and encryption are a contradiction. > And you do not seem to understand the powerplay of big tech. > > No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. Don't argue from false positions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 08:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk5s64$15bli$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145376 |
On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: > On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. > > Don't argue from false positions. You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? Naive to the max. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk5t7e$3ufvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145465 |
On 2024-12-20 23:53, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. >> >> Don't argue from false positions. > > You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end > encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? > Naive to the max. > > I'm sorry but your premise is flawed. There is a difference between what CAN be wrong with it and what must be INHERENTLY wrong with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso7olFo80oU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145465 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-21 08:53: > On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: >> On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. >> >> Don't argue from false positions. > > You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end > encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? > Naive to the max. You know the meaning of end-to-end-encryption? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 08:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk8gtn$16t25$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145492 |
On 21.12.24 17:13, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-21 08:53: > >> On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: >>> On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. >>> >>> Don't argue from false positions. >> >> You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end >> encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? >> Naive to the max. > > You know the meaning of end-to-end-encryption? Very stupid question. In this case it is a Zero-Trust issue. -- "Ave! Morituri te salutant!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk8hi4$16t25$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145526 |
On 22.12.24 08:59, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 21.12.24 17:13, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-21 08:53: >> >>> On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. >>>> >>>> Don't argue from false positions. >>> >>> You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end >>> encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? >>> Naive to the max. >> >> You know the meaning of end-to-end-encryption? > > Very stupid question. In this case it is a Zero-Trust issue. In the developed world are not many encryption-users that would trust either Google or Microsoft (there are more). It is not advisable to use an encryption chain where one commercial company has the control over the chain. Particularly when the company is located/headquartered in Trumpistan. You know what a "Masterkey" or a "Backdoor" is? -- "Ave! Morituri te salutant!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk8uqe$1ka8t$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145527 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > > You know what a "Masterkey" or a "Backdoor" is? > > Aren’t those terms used in relation to a chastity belt?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsunaeFpk7mU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145527 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-22 09:10: > On 22.12.24 08:59, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 21.12.24 17:13, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-21 08:53: >>> >>>> On 18.12.24 09:15, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2024-12-17 23:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>> No. Proprietary and encryption are NOT a contradiction. >>>>> >>>>> Don't argue from false positions. >>>> >>>> You do not understand the concept of asymmetric secure end-to-end >>>> encryption. Those who own the service provide the encryption? Seriously? >>>> Naive to the max. >>> >>> You know the meaning of end-to-end-encryption? >> >> Very stupid question. In this case it is a Zero-Trust issue. > > In the developed world are not many encryption-users that would trust > either Google or Microsoft (there are more). It is not advisable to use > an encryption chain where one commercial company has the control over > the chain. Particularly when the company is located/headquartered in > Trumpistan. > > You know what a "Masterkey" or a "Backdoor" is? So you just don't believe, that RCS uses end-to-end-encryption in Android. Why didn't you tell this in the beginning. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vju9j4$1ekba$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145374 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > On 18.12.24 01:15, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-12-18 00:36, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-17 16:58: >>> >>>> On 17.12.24 15:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2024-12-17 07:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>>> Avoid to use RCS! >>>>> >>>>> If an iPhone is involved. It's fine on Android. The article you posted >>>>> says so. >>>> >>>> You do not understand what happens. >>>> RCS is Google's wet dream. Nobody needs it or wants it. >>> >>> RCS works fine - much better than MMS ever was. Google just added a >>> proprietary encryption to it. >> >> Proprietary, maybe, but they did not block Apple from using it. It was >> Apple who decided not even to try using it. Ok, it is not an standard, >> but it exists, it is there, ready to use. Just use, then agree into an >> standard, and implement it next. > > That is naive. Proprietary and encryption are a contradiction. > And you do not seem to understand the powerplay of big tech. > > By being dismissive and haughty, you are demonstrating that it is you who does not understand anything. You’ve already been invited to educate us, so do that. But we know you are more ignorant than anyone else here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vjv2ak$t0q$1@news.chmurka.net> |
| In reply to | #145374 |
W Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:22:21 +0100, Jörg Lorenz napisal: > And you do not seem to understand the powerplay of big tech. Jorg Lornz is the one to explain it though since he understand it all. Jorg: Please explain to all what you know about this tech "powerplay."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 00:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lseg5jF71r1U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145304 |
Jörg Lorenz, 2024-12-17 07:19: > Avoid to use RCS! It is not what it seems and it is insecure and does > not respect your privacy. Elements that could make is safer are > proprietary Google stuff. > > This is an advice from the FBI. To be more precise: The problem is using RCS between Android and Non-Android-Devices since encryption is not standard for RCS and does not work when you communicate from Android to iOS or vice versa. However Android will show you, if messages to a specific recipient will be sent using encryption or not. [...] > Apple and Google could have, and should have, prevented this. Instead, > Google was worried about tossing barbs at Apple and then taking a > victory lap even when it didn't really get what it was demanding. And Apple did not care, because they have iMessage and just ignore anything outside their ecosystem. On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and Android exist. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 01:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjt8qp$arh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145363 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100 : >> This is an advice from the FBI. > > To be more precise: > > The problem is using RCS between Android and Non-Android-Devices since > encryption is not standard for RCS and does not work when you > communicate from Android to iOS or vice versa. > > However Android will show you, if messages to a specific recipient will > be sent using encryption or not. >> 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. > > And Apple did not care, because they have iMessage and just ignore > anything outside their ecosystem. > > On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and > Android exist. It's actually worse than Apple not caring since Apple only tells the truth in court, where the Epic deposition proved beyond any doubt using Apple executives' emails that Apple *never* wanted interoperability with anyone. That's just a fact that Apple never wants interoperability. Luckily, the EU forced Apple's hand. But only so much... as encryption wasn't part of the EU's demands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vjtb9t$2055t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145369 |
On 2024-12-17 17:34, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:16 +0100 : > >>> This is an advice from the FBI. >> >> To be more precise: >> >> The problem is using RCS between Android and Non-Android-Devices since >> encryption is not standard for RCS and does not work when you >> communicate from Android to iOS or vice versa. >> >> However Android will show you, if messages to a specific recipient will >> be sent using encryption or not. >>> 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. >> >> And Apple did not care, because they have iMessage and just ignore >> anything outside their ecosystem. >> >> On the other hand - messengers with end-to-end-encryption for iOS and >> Android exist. > > It's actually worse than Apple not caring since Apple only tells the truth > in court, where the Epic deposition proved beyond any doubt using Apple > executives' emails that Apple *never* wanted interoperability with anyone. You've got a source for that, do you? > > That's just a fact that Apple never wants interoperability. > > Luckily, the EU forced Apple's hand. > > But only so much... as encryption wasn't part of the EU's demands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web