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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmfdl$1rcn8$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145665 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > 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? > > > Although I don’t share the same sentiments as Arlen, I can respect the desire to remain anonymous and protect his identity as much as possible. Still I wonder if this is worth the effort considering the lengths he goes to in order to work around all the roadblocks in his way. Then there is the lingering notion that the cellular provider will always know who and where you are once you use their towers for a phone call or any data related activity. In my mind you are never truly anonymous once connected to the internet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmgnm$3m3s8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145680 |
On 12/27/24 8:00 AM, badgolferman wrote: >Then there is the >lingering notion that the cellular provider will always know who and where >you are once you use their towers for a phone call or any data related >activity. You don't even have to make a call or use data. Just have service. I can locate the wife's iPhone using most any device's browser. For example I can do it with this Amazon Fire tablet's browser in an emergency like when she's late bringing home lunch...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmnic.8n8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145681 |
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote: > On 12/27/24 8:00 AM, badgolferman wrote: > > >Then there is the > >lingering notion that the cellular provider will always know who and where > >you are once you use their towers for a phone call or any data related > >activity. > > You don't even have to make a call or use data. Just have service. I can > locate the wife's iPhone using most any device's browser. For example I can > do it with this Amazon Fire tablet's browser in an emergency like when > she's late bringing home lunch... In that scenario, perhaps *you* don't use any (mobile) data, but *she* does/did. Her location is not determined by cell/tower pinging, but by her iPhone using the (mobile) Internet to supply her location. But as badgolferman mentioned, the mobile *provider* - and hence law enforcement, etc. - will/can know the location of any phone which is in range and not in Airplane mode, even if the phone does not make/receive a voice call.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmrr3$1veo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145682 |
Frank Slootweg wrote on 27 Dec 2024 16:19:15 GMT : >>>Then there is the >>>lingering notion that the cellular provider will always know who and where >>>you are once you use their towers for a phone call or any data related >>>activity. >> >> You don't even have to make a call or use data. Just have service. I can >> locate the wife's iPhone using most any device's browser. For example I can >> do it with this Amazon Fire tablet's browser in an emergency like when >> she's late bringing home lunch... > > In that scenario, perhaps *you* don't use any (mobile) data, but *she* > does/did. Her location is not determined by cell/tower pinging, but by > her iPhone using the (mobile) Internet to supply her location. > > But as badgolferman mentioned, the mobile *provider* - and hence law > enforcement, etc. - will/can know the location of any phone which is in > range and not in Airplane mode, even if the phone does not make/receive > a voice call. The fact the carrier knows who you are doesn't mean you have to then log into every mothership server on the planet because you feel you're doomed. I happen to have an undergrad degree in microbiology; most people don't. Hence, I know a LOT about keeping myself clean; which most people don't. As a result, I know it's impossible to be sterile - but - it's eminently possible to keep myself clean(er) & free(er) of disease bearing germs. The fact is I know a *lot* about cleanliness so I can keep myself cleaner than most people (since I'm aware of the pitfalls - which I then avoid). In contrast, most people, since they're clueless, are fantastically filthy. They have no idea of anything. They don't know a bacteria from a virus. They are ignorant - and hence - they claim things which are dead wrong. People who are ignorant of microbiology - should not be chastising those who happen to know a lot more than they ever will know about microbiology. Same thing here on privacy - which is the topic of this thread after all. Change the story above to privacy and it's the same thing. A. I know a lot about privacy; most people don't. B. I keep my actions on the Internet private as I can; most people can't. C. That doesn't make me wrong. It just means I am more private than they are. For someone to talk about someone seeking privacy with disdain is no different than that same clueless person talking about someone seeking to keep his hands and body clean due to their own ignorance of the topic. People who are ignorant of privacy - should not be chastising those who happen to know a lot more about privacy than they ever will know about it. Anyone who says they can be 100% private/anonymous on a phone is wrong. But anyone who says you can't be more private/anonymous is also wrong. The fact the carrier knows who you are doesn't mean you have to then log into every mothership server on the planet because you feel you're doomed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmudv$3nkcv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145688 |
On 2024-12-27 10:32, Andrew wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote on 27 Dec 2024 16:19:15 GMT : > >>>> Then there is the >>>> lingering notion that the cellular provider will always know who and >>>> where >>>> you are once you use their towers for a phone call or any data related >>>> activity. >>> >>> You don't even have to make a call or use data. Just have service. I can >>> locate the wife's iPhone using most any device's browser. For >>> example I can >>> do it with this Amazon Fire tablet's browser in an emergency like when >>> she's late bringing home lunch... >> >> In that scenario, perhaps *you* don't use any (mobile) data, but *she* >> does/did. Her location is not determined by cell/tower pinging, but by >> her iPhone using the (mobile) Internet to supply her location. >> >> But as badgolferman mentioned, the mobile *provider* - and hence law >> enforcement, etc. - will/can know the location of any phone which is in >> range and not in Airplane mode, even if the phone does not make/receive >> a voice call. > > The fact the carrier knows who you are doesn't mean you have to then log > into every mothership server on the planet because you feel you're doomed. > > I happen to have an undergrad degree in microbiology; most people don't. > Hence, I know a LOT about keeping myself clean; which most people don't. > As a result, I know it's impossible to be sterile - but - it's eminently > possible to keep myself clean(er) & free(er) of disease bearing germs. > > The fact is I know a *lot* about cleanliness so I can keep myself cleaner > than most people (since I'm aware of the pitfalls - which I then avoid). > > In contrast, most people, since they're clueless, are fantastically filthy. > They have no idea of anything. They don't know a bacteria from a virus. > They are ignorant - and hence - they claim things which are dead wrong. > > People who are ignorant of microbiology - should not be chastising those > who happen to know a lot more than they ever will know about microbiology. > > Same thing here on privacy - which is the topic of this thread after all. > Change the story above to privacy and it's the same thing. > > A. I know a lot about privacy; most people don't. > B. I keep my actions on the Internet private as I can; most people can't. > C. That doesn't make me wrong. > It just means I am more private than they are. So you justify your knowledge of cleanliness with an undergrad degree in microbiology... ...and then just declare yourself an expert on privacy. > > For someone to talk about someone seeking privacy with disdain is no > different than that same clueless person talking about someone seeking to > keep his hands and body clean due to their own ignorance of the topic. > > People who are ignorant of privacy - should not be chastising those who > happen to know a lot more about privacy than they ever will know about it. > > Anyone who says they can be 100% private/anonymous on a phone is wrong. > But anyone who says you can't be more private/anonymous is also wrong. > > The fact the carrier knows who you are doesn't mean you have to then log > into every mothership server on the planet because you feel you're doomed. And anyone who says (redundantly) that you have to be logged into your AppleID (now officially "Apple Account") "24/7/365"... ...doesn't have a clue about the facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 11:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkm4m7$1eb44$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145661 |
Andrew <andys@nospam.com> 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. > > 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. > One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the grid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lt7lquF8b6rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145675 |
badgolferman, 2024-12-27 12:56: > Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: [...] >> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet. >> > > One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a > region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. > Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the > grid. You can do this with OSMAnd as well. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 14:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmg7v.db4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145678 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > badgolferman, 2024-12-27 12:56: > > > Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: > [...] > >> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet. > > > > One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a > > region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. > > Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the > > grid. > > You can do this with OSMAnd as well. OsmAnd+ was my first and primary app. Used it a lot in rural/outback/ remote Australia, where there just isn't any Internet (other than extremely expensive satellite Internet). Besides Google Maps and OsmAnd, there are several other offline navigation apps, such as HERE WeGo and Sygic, some of them are also available on 'totally useless' iPhones! :-) Other things (in addition to photos and navigation) to do with Internet-less devices (iPhones and Andoid), in no particular order: - play music - play/record videos - play games - read ebooks - listen to FM radio (Android only) - listen to podcasts - work on 'Office' documents - personal health, activity, sleep recording/analysis - camping/campsite apps - etc..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmr2v$1k6g$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145679 |
Frank Slootweg wrote on 27 Dec 2024 14:14:18 GMT : > OsmAnd+ was my first and primary app. Used it a lot in rural/outback/ > remote Australia, where there just isn't any Internet (other than > extremely expensive satellite Internet). > > Besides Google Maps and OsmAnd, there are several other offline > navigation apps, such as HERE WeGo and Sygic, some of them are also > available on 'totally useless' iPhones! :-) > > Other things (in addition to photos and navigation) to do with > Internet-less devices (iPhones and Andoid), in no particular order: > > - play music > - play/record videos > - play games > - read ebooks > - listen to FM radio (Android only) > - listen to podcasts > - work on 'Office' documents > - personal health, activity, sleep recording/analysis > - camping/campsite apps > - etc.. There are many things an iOS or Android app can do without logging into a mothership mainframe server on the Internet (which murders your privacy). But this thread is about privacy and security and there's nothing less private than logging into the Apple walled garden mothership 24/7/365. *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* Apple tracks *everything* you do on the walled garden as a result, where most Android users are likely clueless Apple inserts your Apple ID into every app - even free apps! - you download - which even Google doesn't do. Why does Apple insert your Apple ID into every (even free) app you install? I don't know why. I suspect it's part of Apple's plan to hinder re-use on another device. Since Android & Apple users are involved in this conversation, the Apple users are perhaps clueless that an Android free app can be installed on any Android device in the world (assuming the hardware is compatible). It's the same with EVERY operating system other than Apple's where only Apple prevents that free app from being installed on any other device unless - yes - you guessed it - unless it has the very same Apple ID. -- There are minor exceptions for "family sharing" but it's all a restriction inside the walled garden because Apple firmly controls every single app.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmspl$3nkcv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145687 |
On 2024-12-27 10:19, Andrew wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote on 27 Dec 2024 14:14:18 GMT : > >> OsmAnd+ was my first and primary app. Used it a lot in rural/outback/ >> remote Australia, where there just isn't any Internet (other than >> extremely expensive satellite Internet). >> >> Besides Google Maps and OsmAnd, there are several other offline >> navigation apps, such as HERE WeGo and Sygic, some of them are also >> available on 'totally useless' iPhones! :-) >> >> Other things (in addition to photos and navigation) to do with >> Internet-less devices (iPhones and Andoid), in no particular order: >> >> - play music >> - play/record videos >> - play games >> - read ebooks >> - listen to FM radio (Android only) >> - listen to podcasts >> - work on 'Office' documents >> - personal health, activity, sleep recording/analysis >> - camping/campsite apps >> - etc.. > > There are many things an iOS or Android app can do without logging into a > mothership mainframe server on the Internet (which murders your privacy). Yes. That's true. > > But this thread is about privacy and security and there's nothing less > private than logging into the Apple walled garden mothership 24/7/365. > > *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* Except you don't have to be logged in 24/7/(and there's no need to mention both "7" and "365"). > > Apple tracks *everything* you do on the walled garden as a result, where > most Android users are likely clueless Apple inserts your Apple ID into > every app - even free apps! - you download - which even Google doesn't do. Why do you care? > > Why does Apple insert your Apple ID into every (even free) app you install? > I don't know why. > > I suspect it's part of Apple's plan to hinder re-use on another device. So you mean "theft"? > > Since Android & Apple users are involved in this conversation, the Apple > users are perhaps clueless that an Android free app can be installed on any > Android device in the world (assuming the hardware is compatible). > > It's the same with EVERY operating system other than Apple's where only > Apple prevents that free app from being installed on any other device > unless - yes - you guessed it - unless it has the very same Apple ID. If it's free, why do you NEED to copy it from one app to another?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lta6f2Fkj2qU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145692 |
Alan, 2024-12-27 19:48: > On 2024-12-27 10:19, Andrew wrote: [...] >> I suspect it's part of Apple's plan to hinder re-use on another device. > > So you mean "theft"? Yes, he must refer to theft. Because re-using an iOS device is absolutely no problem at all - if the previous owner unregistered the device and thus made it possible for the new owner to set it up for his own account. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl28ll$bos$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145716 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:41:24 +0100 : >>> I suspect it's part of Apple's plan to hinder re-use on another device. >> >> So you mean "theft"? > > Yes, he must refer to theft. Because re-using an iOS device is > absolutely no problem at all - if the previous owner unregistered the > device and thus made it possible for the new owner to set it up for his > own account. Arno's statement is so absurd - it shows he has zero iOS understanding. Neither Arno nor the IQ 40 Alan Baker understands how APKs & IPAs work. Even more absurd, for some reason, both think using free apps is "theft". Which is a ridiculous thing for either Arno or the IQ 40 Alan Baker to say. Using free apps is "theft" to Arno & to the IQ 40 Alan Baker. Who is *that* stupid to think that using a free app is "theft"? Only Arno. And the IQ 40 Alan Baker. Nobody else would make such a patently preposterous claim. HINT: Using free apps is not theft. FACT about how Android free APKs work: 1. Download a free app APK from Google's App Store. 2. Try to use that free app on a device with a different Google ID. 3. It works. FACT about how Android free APKs work: 1. Download a free app IPA from Apple's App Store. 2. Try to use that free app on a device with a different Apple ID. 3. You can't. -- HINT: With Android, assuming the hardware is compatible, you can re-use a free app APK on any Android phone on the planet. With iOS, you can only use that free app IPA on a device with a single Apple ID (or family plan).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ltlt6pFh41uU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145970 |
Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:18: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:41:24 +0100 : > >>>> I suspect it's part of Apple's plan to hinder re-use on another device. >>> >>> So you mean "theft"? >> >> Yes, he must refer to theft. Because re-using an iOS device is >> absolutely no problem at all - if the previous owner unregistered the >> device and thus made it possible for the new owner to set it up for his >> own account. > > Arno's statement is so absurd - it shows he has zero iOS understanding. > Neither Arno nor the IQ 40 Alan Baker understands how APKs & IPAs work. No? What about this - please explain: <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.arnowelzel.android.periodical/> How can it be, that I publish apps if I don't know, how that works? -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 12:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lta6c5Fkj2qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145687 |
Andrew, 2024-12-27 19:19: > Frank Slootweg wrote on 27 Dec 2024 14:14:18 GMT : > >> OsmAnd+ was my first and primary app. Used it a lot in rural/outback/ >> remote Australia, where there just isn't any Internet (other than >> extremely expensive satellite Internet). >> >> Besides Google Maps and OsmAnd, there are several other offline >> navigation apps, such as HERE WeGo and Sygic, some of them are also >> available on 'totally useless' iPhones! :-) >> >> Other things (in addition to photos and navigation) to do with >> Internet-less devices (iPhones and Andoid), in no particular order: >> >> - play music >> - play/record videos >> - play games >> - read ebooks >> - listen to FM radio (Android only) >> - listen to podcasts >> - work on 'Office' documents >> - personal health, activity, sleep recording/analysis >> - camping/campsite apps >> - etc.. > > There are many things an iOS or Android app can do without logging into a > mothership mainframe server on the Internet (which murders your privacy). Are there? You claimed all the time, that iOS is completely useless without active internet connection. > But this thread is about privacy and security and there's nothing less > private than logging into the Apple walled garden mothership 24/7/365. > > *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* As did Google and Microsoft. So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkp7bv.s7o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145715 |
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > Andrew, 2024-12-27 19:19: [...] > > *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* > > As did Google and Microsoft. > > So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. Well, with some creativity it's still possible to create a Google account without any real personal information. (Whether such an account is all that useful for using on an Android smartphone/tablet is abother matter.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl29dl$111p$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145721 |
Frank Slootweg wrote on 28 Dec 2024 15:01:10 GMT : >>> *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* >> >> As did Google and Microsoft. >> >> So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. > > Well, with some creativity it's still possible to create a Google > account without any real personal information. (Whether such an account > is all that useful for using on an Android smartphone/tablet is abother > matter.) Why do you need a Google Account set up on a phone in the first place? There's nothing a phone with that account can do that one w/o it can't. Details here: *What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?* <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56585&group=comp.mobile.android#56585> If anyone can come up with what functionality requires a Google Account set up on the phone, then they should list that functionality in that thread. Note: Almost every widely used Google app has an open-source equivalent. For example, NewPipe===YouTube, Bromite===Chrome, Google Play===Aurora
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl294c$nar$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145715 |
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:39:51 +0100 : >> But this thread is about privacy and security and there's nothing less >> private than logging into the Apple walled garden mothership 24/7/365. >> >> *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* > > As did Google and Microsoft. > > So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. Why do you need a Google Account, Frank? FACT: a. Apple's iOS requires an intimate connection to the mothership; b. Google's Android does not! That's a huge difference in terms of privacy since an Android phone works just fine without putting a Google Account on that phone. An iPhone can't even make phone calls without first connecting to the mothership and even after that, if you don't put a mothership account on that iPhone, you can't even install apps so it's even more brain dead. An Android phone works just fine WITHOUT a mothership account on it. An iPhone does not. Big difference in privacy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl29jn$11kt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145971 |
Andrew wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 02:26:20 -0000 (UTC) : >> So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. > > Why do you need a Google Account, Frank? Oops. Arno said that, not Frank. Anyway, almost nobody is intelligent enough to realize a Google Account is not necessary on an Android phone for full functionality but an Apple account is. That's the major difference between the two platforms in terms of privacy. 1. iOS requires a mothership account for full functionality; 2. Android does not. Details here: *What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?* <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56585&group=comp.mobile.android#56585>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ltlt91Fh41uU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145973 |
Andrew, 2025-01-01 03:34: > Andrew wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 02:26:20 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. >> >> Why do you need a Google Account, Frank? > > Oops. Arno said that, not Frank. No, I didn't! I said, for some APPS(!) you need a Google account. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vl46rv$2t5hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145971 |
On 2024-12-31 18:26, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 12:39:51 +0100 : > >>> But this thread is about privacy and security and there's nothing less >>> private than logging into the Apple walled garden mothership 24/7/365. >>> >>> *Apple's walled garden _murdered_ privacy* >> >> As did Google and Microsoft. >> >> So go ahead and create a fake account without personal information. > > Why do you need a Google Account, Frank? > > FACT: > a. Apple's iOS requires an intimate connection to the mothership; > b. Google's Android does not! > > That's a huge difference in terms of privacy since an Android phone works > just fine without putting a Google Account on that phone. > > An iPhone can't even make phone calls without first connecting to the > mothership and even after that, if you don't put a mothership account on > that iPhone, you can't even install apps so it's even more brain dead. > > An Android phone works just fine WITHOUT a mothership account on it. > An iPhone does not. > > Big difference in privacy. Except for downloading apps, you never need to use your Apple Account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web