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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 11:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkf1v1$20a4t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145581 |
On 2024-12-24 04:35, Arno Welzel wrote: > Andrew, 2024-12-24 05:18: > >> Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:03 +0100 : >> >>>> I even thought you knew more about Android than I do, Arno. >>>> But I must have been wrong. >>> >>> No, you just don't tell what you *REALLY* mean. >>> >>> If you want to express "one needs to create an Apple account to use an >>> iPhone" than say it! And don't say, that an iPhone has to PHYSICALLY >>> CONNECTED to the internet all the time! >> >> How is the Apple messaging going to work among other Apple users (other >> than plain jane sms) without logging into an Apple server on the Internet? >> >> How is Apple's facetime going to work without logging into an Apple server >> on the Internet? >> >> How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on >> the Internet? > > It wont't. But that was not the point. I talked about using the phone at > all. Even an iPhone does stop working COMPLETELY just because there is > no internet. > > > Not even close to "completely" in fact. Most things that you can do on an iPhone you can do regardless of whether you're logged into your Apple Account or not. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkkasu$2gc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145581 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:35:46 +0100 : >> How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on >> the Internet? > > It wont't. But that was not the point. I talked about using the phone at > all. Even an iPhone does stop working COMPLETELY just because there is > no internet. Good. Because Apple iOS devices are dumb terminals attached to the "walled garden" which itself is based purely on Apple's servers on the Internet. Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on the Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks it all. No other common consumer operating system is designed as a dumb terminal. Just iOS. Worse, NOTHING on the iOS device works without Apple servers involved. I wonder if you're aware that the iPhone or iPad can't even be activated without connecting to Apple's servers (which are clearly on the Internet). Are you aware of that Arno?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkkc7s$34b2g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145660 |
On 2024-12-26 11:30, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:35:46 +0100 : > >>> How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple >>> server on >>> the Internet? >> >> It wont't. But that was not the point. I talked about using the phone at >> all. Even an iPhone does stop working COMPLETELY just because there is >> no internet. > > Good. Because Apple iOS devices are dumb terminals attached to the "walled > garden" which itself is based purely on Apple's servers on the Internet. False. > > Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on the > Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks it all. False. > > No other common consumer operating system is designed as a dumb terminal. > Just iOS. > > Worse, NOTHING on the iOS device works without Apple servers involved. False. > > I wonder if you're aware that the iPhone or iPad can't even be activated > without connecting to Apple's servers (which are clearly on the Internet). False. > > Are you aware of that Arno?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt5r4bFtok5U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145660 |
Andrew, 2024-12-26 20:30: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:35:46 +0100 : > >>> How is Apple's App Store gonna work without logging into an Apple server on >>> the Internet? >> >> It wont't. But that was not the point. I talked about using the phone at >> all. Even an iPhone does stop working COMPLETELY just because there is >> no internet. > > Good. Because Apple iOS devices are dumb terminals attached to the "walled > garden" which itself is based purely on Apple's servers on the Internet. > > Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on the > Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks it all. Not only Apple. Microsoft and Google do this as well. > No other common consumer operating system is designed as a dumb terminal. > Just iOS. Wrong. > Are you aware of that Arno? Are you aware that you don't know anything at all? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmsel$2a43$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145664 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Thu, 26 Dec 2024 21:03:24 +0100 : >> Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on the >> Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks it all. > > Not only Apple. Microsoft and Google do this as well. Everything you claim, Arno, shows you do not understand how Android works. Specifically, you are unaware that Android does not require a Google Account set up on the phone - and the proof is that I don't have one. Why is it that I can do everything I need to do on Android without that Google Account set up on my phone - and you can't do anything without it? Seriously, Arno. Your statements prove you know absolutely nothing about Android. And no, I'm not rooted. >> No other common consumer operating system is designed as a dumb terminal. >> Just iOS. > > Wrong. Only iOS requires you to activate the device with Apple's mothership servers. That you're not aware of that fact means you know nothing about iOS either. >> Are you aware of that Arno? > > Are you aware that you don't know anything at all? And yet, my (unrooted) Android works fine without a Google Account set up on it - & you can't even do that - so who is the one who knows nothing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 10:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmtec$3njcc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145690 |
On 2024-12-27 10:42, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Thu, 26 Dec 2024 21:03:24 +0100 : > >>> Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on >>> the >>> Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks >>> it all. >> >> Not only Apple. Microsoft and Google do this as well. > > Everything you claim, Arno, shows you do not understand how Android works. > > Specifically, you are unaware that Android does not require a Google > Account set up on the phone - and the proof is that I don't have one. And Apple officially requires a very minimal AppleID... ...which could contain pretty much no personal information about you. > > Why is it that I can do everything I need to do on Android without that > Google Account set up on my phone - and you can't do anything without it? > > Seriously, Arno. > Your statements prove you know absolutely nothing about Android. > > And no, I'm not rooted. >>> No other common consumer operating system is designed as a dumb >>> terminal. >>> Just iOS. >> >> Wrong. > > Only iOS requires you to activate the device with Apple's mothership > servers. > That you're not aware of that fact means you know nothing about iOS either. But you can create an absolutely minimal AppleID to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 12:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lta682Fkj2qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145690 |
Andrew, 2024-12-27 19:42: > Arno Welzel wrote on Thu, 26 Dec 2024 21:03:24 +0100 : > >>> Which is why 99.99% of iOS owners are connected to Apple's servers on the >>> Internet 24/7/365. Every moment they're on the device. Apple tracks it all. >> >> Not only Apple. Microsoft and Google do this as well. > > Everything you claim, Arno, shows you do not understand how Android works. Well - I've been developing software for Android for more than 10 years now and one of my private projects is available on F-Droid and Google Play: <https://arnowelzel.de/en/projects/periodical> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.arnowelzel.android.periodical> <https://f-droid.org/packages/de.arnowelzel.android.periodical/> I *know* how Android works. > Specifically, you are unaware that Android does not require a Google > Account set up on the phone - and the proof is that I don't have one. Of course - but this is not the point! You *require* a Google account for many apps, so it is completely pointless if Android itself does not need this to be used at all. > Why is it that I can do everything I need to do on Android without that > Google Account set up on my phone - and you can't do anything without it? Because I use apps which *require* a Google account. But I am willing to learn how to use Google Play, Google Maps, Google Wallet, PayPal, Jelbi and many others without a Google account. > Seriously, Arno. > Your statements prove you know absolutely nothing about Android. And you still don't get my point. > And no, I'm not rooted. "Rooting" is a thing of the past. Nowadays it makes no sense to root a device anyway in most cases. e/OS/ and LineageOS come without root access - and this is good so! [...] >> Are you aware that you don't know anything at all? > > And yet, my (unrooted) Android works fine without a Google Account set up > on it - & you can't even do that - so who is the one who knows nothing? Well - setting up a device is just the first step. Most people do not just want to setup their device but also install and use apps. And not apps available on F-Droid but also apps from Google Play. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkp6g4.s7o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145714 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: [...] > Of course - but this is not the point! You *require* a Google account > for many apps, so it is completely pointless if Android itself does not > need this to be used at all. I know what you mean (see your quoted text below), but to be fair, only can use quite a lot of apps - including several Google apps - without a Google account. Considering the absurdity of this non-discussion, I can't be bothered to check all my apps, but I'm hard pressed to think of one or more of my apps which requires a Google account. Of course, I'm not so silly as to try to get all my apps from non-Google app 'stores', so yes, I do have and use a Google account. But my point is that I *could* do without one and the large majority of my apps would be fully functional and even the Google apps (Chrome, Maps, YouTube (,Google?) would be mostly functional. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl27n8$o7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145720 |
Frank Slootweg wrote on 28 Dec 2024 14:46:19 GMT : >> Of course - but this is not the point! You *require* a Google account >> for many apps, so it is completely pointless if Android itself does not >> need this to be used at all. > > I know what you mean (see your quoted text below), but to be fair, > only can use quite a lot of apps - including several Google apps - > without a Google account. Frank is correct here and it's even *better* because for every Google app that does require an account, there's usually an open-source equivalent that handles that account anonymously WITHOUT creating a Google Account on the phone. An example is NewPipe (which replaces the Google YouTube app). Another example is Aurora (which replaces the Google Play Store app). And, of course, you can check your "Google" mail account w/o the GMail app. > Considering the absurdity of this > non-discussion, I can't be bothered to check all my apps, but I'm hard > pressed to think of one or more of my apps which requires a Google > account. The main reason for the "absurdity" of this discussion is that it's clear neither you nor Arno understand how Android works (since an Android phone does everything without a Google Account being set up on that phone). Only one out of a million people understand how Android works, Frank. > Of course, I'm not so silly as to try to get all my apps from > non-Google app 'stores', so yes, I do have and use a Google account. Frank - I don't know if you are intelligent enough to understand the next statement, but I hope you are because your statement above is absurd. The Aurora app installs the APK *from* the Google Play store repo. Only one out of a million people are smart enough to understand that. > But > my point is that I *could* do without one and the large majority of my > apps would be fully functional and even the Google apps (Chrome, Maps, > YouTube (,Google?) would be mostly functional. Neither you nor Arno have any idea whatsoever how Android works, Frank. Every single app on the Google Play Store repository is available to the Auroa app (which does NOT require a Google Account on the phone) Frank. What's absurd is neither you nor Arno have any idea what an Android phone can do WITHOUT having a Google Account on that phone. I haven't had a Google Account on my Android phones for many years, Frank. And I can do more than you can do with that phone, Frank. What's absurd is you (and Arno) claiming to understand how Android works, and then you say absurd things - which proves you don't know how it works. Suffice to state that an Android phone does NOT need a Google Account on that phone to do everything you need to do - if you have any intelligence. But only one out of a million people are intelligent enough to know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ltlt4uFh41uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145968 |
Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:02: [...] > The main reason for the "absurdity" of this discussion is that it's clear > neither you nor Arno understand how Android works (since an Android phone > does everything without a Google Account being set up on that phone). I *do* understand how Android works! And yes, I *know* that you don't need a Google account to use Android! I only explained, that there are apps(!) which need a Google account and in that case it is completely irrelevant, if the OS itself needs that or not! You can not use Google Wallet without an account for example and there are many other usecases where normal users just rely on Google services. Not everybody is able to set up DAVx5 and host a server for CardDAV/CalDAV to make sure adressbook and calendar are backed up and can be used on other devices too. > Only one out of a million people understand how Android works, Frank. No - even fewer people do so. You won't find more than a few tenthousand people on the world who really understand how Android works, since most people just *use* it and don't know anything at all about application manifests, permissions, sandboxing and so on. But they don't care. People use devices and don't care about the requirements. People use services by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta and so on - and they don't care! [...] > Neither you nor Arno have any idea whatsoever how Android works, Frank. I've been publishing apps for Android for more than 10 years now without knowning how Android works? You are really funny. > Every single app on the Google Play Store repository is available to the > Auroa app (which does NOT require a Google Account on the phone) Frank. > > What's absurd is neither you nor Arno have any idea what an Android phone > can do WITHOUT having a Google Account on that phone. I know that. I *use* Android devices without any Google account. But you did not understand one single word I word - nothing at all. > I haven't had a Google Account on my Android phones for many years, Frank. > And I can do more than you can do with that phone, Frank. And I am an Android developer since 2008. What is your professional expertise here besides your private experiences? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vl4f57$2vck2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146020 |
On 2025-01-01 14:15, Arno Welzel wrote: > Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:02: > > [...] >> The main reason for the "absurdity" of this discussion is that it's clear >> neither you nor Arno understand how Android works (since an Android phone >> does everything without a Google Account being set up on that phone). > > I *do* understand how Android works! And yes, I *know* that you don't > need a Google account to use Android! > > I only explained, that there are apps(!) which need a Google account and > in that case it is completely irrelevant, if the OS itself needs that or > not! > > You can not use Google Wallet without an account for example and there > are many other usecases where normal users just rely on Google services. > Not everybody is able to set up DAVx5 and host a server for > CardDAV/CalDAV to make sure adressbook and calendar are backed up and > can be used on other devices too. > >> Only one out of a million people understand how Android works, Frank. > > No - even fewer people do so. You won't find more than a few tenthousand > people on the world who really understand how Android works, since most > people just *use* it and don't know anything at all about application > manifests, permissions, sandboxing and so on. > > But they don't care. People use devices and don't care about the > requirements. People use services by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta and > so on - and they don't care! > > [...] >> Neither you nor Arno have any idea whatsoever how Android works, Frank. > > I've been publishing apps for Android for more than 10 years now without > knowning how Android works? You are really funny. > >> Every single app on the Google Play Store repository is available to the >> Auroa app (which does NOT require a Google Account on the phone) Frank. >> >> What's absurd is neither you nor Arno have any idea what an Android phone >> can do WITHOUT having a Google Account on that phone. > > I know that. I *use* Android devices without any Google account. But you > did not understand one single word I word - nothing at all. > >> I haven't had a Google Account on my Android phones for many years, Frank. >> And I can do more than you can do with that phone, Frank. > > And I am an Android developer since 2008. What is your professional > expertise here besides your private experiences? > Andrew/Arlen will be saying in a post next week that you "admitted to never using Android". Kind of like he ignores the proof that I am a racing driver and certified race driving instructor. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lso79mFo80oU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145423 |
david, 2024-12-20 21:50: > Using <news:G1ednb-7Bb5NX_j6nZ2dnZfqn_rczs6s@earthlink.com>, Ant wrote: > >>>>> On the other hand Apple customers don't care. They also don't care that >>>>> FaceTime is only possible with other Apple users. In the US iOS has a >>>>> market share of nearly 60% and the Android market share is declining >>>>> slowly: >>>>> <https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Ditto. I put mine offline when not needed. > > How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other > Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the Internet? Is "send and receive group facetime messages" neccessary to do phone calls, taking pictures or listening to music stored on the device? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk7agl$13tb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145487 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:05:12 +0100 : >> How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other >> Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the Internet? > > Is "send and receive group facetime messages" neccessary to do phone > calls, taking pictures or listening to music stored on the device? Arno, Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. C'mon... tell us. HINT: You can't even make a phone call without doing that first, Arno. Note that if you don't know this simple fact, which everyone knows by the way, then it means you know absolutely NOTHING about how iOS devices work. Discussing such basics with you is absurd because you sound like Alan Baker who also knows absolutely nothing about how anything works, Arno. Please stop saying absurd claims that only people like Alan Baker say. Log out of all your Apple accounts, Arno - and then you tell us all what you can and cannot do. Do not respond until AFTER you've logged out of them! Otherwise you know NOTHING about how iOS works, Arno. Only Apple requires you to create an account to do the simplest of things. HINT: a. Take a new iPhone b. Do NOT create an Apple Account on it c. Try to make phone calls Tell us all how well that works out for you, Arno.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 13:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vk7ar9$6o2d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145516 |
On 2024-12-21 13:04, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:05:12 +0100 : > >>> How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other >>> Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the >>> Internet? >> >> Is "send and receive group facetime messages" neccessary to do phone >> calls, taking pictures or listening to music stored on the device? > > Arno, > > Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* > logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. > > C'mon... tell us. > > HINT: You can't even make a phone call without doing that first, Arno. You can certainly make phone calls on an iPhone without being logged into your Apple account. > > Note that if you don't know this simple fact, which everyone knows by the > way, then it means you know absolutely NOTHING about how iOS devices work. > > Discussing such basics with you is absurd because you sound like Alan Baker > who also knows absolutely nothing about how anything works, Arno. > > Please stop saying absurd claims that only people like Alan Baker say. > Log out of all your Apple accounts, Arno - and then you tell us all what > you can and cannot do. Do not respond until AFTER you've logged out of > them! Tell me something I supposedly can't do. I'll grant you downloading apps. But once downloaded they work fine whether you're logged into your Apple account or not. > > Otherwise you know NOTHING about how iOS works, Arno. > Only Apple requires you to create an account to do the simplest of things. > > HINT: a. Take a new iPhone > b. Do NOT create an Apple Account on it > c. Try to make phone calls > > Tell us all how well that works out for you, Arno. <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 04:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsun5gFpk7mU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145516 |
Andrew, 2024-12-21 22:04: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:05:12 +0100 : > >>> How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other >>> Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the Internet? >> >> Is "send and receive group facetime messages" neccessary to do phone >> calls, taking pictures or listening to music stored on the device? > > Arno, > > Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* > logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. I am not talking about "logging in" anywhere! I talk about ACTIVE NETWORK CONNECTION! -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkdd18$1s2a$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145565 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:48 +0100 : >> Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* >> logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. > > I am not talking about "logging in" anywhere! > > I talk about ACTIVE NETWORK CONNECTION! Please run this search and tell us what the results are when you do... *how to activate brand new iphone 13 without internet* Here's a search link: Just click on it and tell us what you learned: <https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+activate+brand+new+iphone+13+without+internet> Now try that with an iPhone 14 but change the search a teeny tiny bit... <https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+activate+brand+new+iphone+14+without+esim+without+internet> What did you learn? HINT: The iPhone can't even be activated without the Internet!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-24 13:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lsvo7mF4l5U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145573 |
Andrew, 2024-12-24 05:24: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:12:48 +0100 : > >>> Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* >>> logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. >> >> I am not talking about "logging in" anywhere! >> >> I talk about ACTIVE NETWORK CONNECTION! > > Please run this search and tell us what the results are when you do... > *how to activate brand new iphone 13 without internet* AGAIN: I am not talking about "logging in" anywhere! I talk about ACTIVE NETWORK CONNECTION! So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you still take pictures and listen to music or open the calendar and address book? Yes? Why? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkkb7e$1ij8$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145582 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:37:10 +0100 : > So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you still take > pictures and listen to music or open the calendar and address book? Yes? > Why? It's good you finally understand that the iPhone can't even be activated without the Internet so NOTHING WHATSOEVER WORKS without the Internet. You're correct that once you've activated the iPhone on the Internet, then (and only then) it can make calls WITHOUT needing the Internet. Nobody said otherwise. And yes, the dumb-terminal iPhone can take pictures WITHOUT the Internet. Big deal. So, without the Internet every second of the day, the iPhone still can take pictures and make phone calls. Big deal. But it can't do anything inside the walled garden that people love so much. It's just a dumb terminal, Arno. All I ever wanted was for you to understand what it is. And what it is, is a dumb terminal. Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkkc6k$34b2g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145661 |
On 2024-12-26 11:36, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:37:10 +0100 : > >> So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you still take >> pictures and listen to music or open the calendar and address book? Yes? >> Why? > > It's good you finally understand that the iPhone can't even be activated > without the Internet so NOTHING WHATSOEVER WORKS without the Internet. This is utterly false. > > You're correct that once you've activated the iPhone on the Internet, then > (and only then) it can make calls WITHOUT needing the Internet. > > Nobody said otherwise. > > And yes, the dumb-terminal iPhone can take pictures WITHOUT the Internet. > Big deal. > > So, without the Internet every second of the day, the iPhone still can take > pictures and make phone calls. Big deal. It can do much, much more. In fact, without the internet, every app you have on the phone that doesn't require network access as an inherent part of its function will work just fine. > > But it can't do anything inside the walled garden that people love so much. > It's just a dumb terminal, Arno. > > All I ever wanted was for you to understand what it is. > And what it is, is a dumb terminal. > > Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet. 1. Can you activate an iPhone without an Apple Account? Yes. <https://www.aiseesoft.com/how-to/set-up-an-iphone-without-apple-id.html> 2. If you do set up an AppleID, do you need to be signed into your account 24/7 to use your iPhone. No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt5r4vFtok5U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145661 |
Andrew, 2024-12-26 20:36: > Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:37:10 +0100 : > >> So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you still take >> pictures and listen to music or open the calendar and address book? Yes? >> Why? > > It's good you finally understand that the iPhone can't even be activated > without the Internet so NOTHING WHATSOEVER WORKS without the Internet. So what? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web