Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #146076 > unrolled thread

More about RCS.

Started bymicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
First post2025-01-02 22:55 -0500
Last post2025-01-11 12:56 +0100
Articles 15 on this page of 75 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-02 22:55 -0500
    Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 06:58 +0100
      Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 08:02 -0500
        Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 15:25 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 09:36 -0500
            Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:38 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-03 22:27 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 18:41 +0000
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 18:26 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 23:22 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 02:55 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 09:02 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 09:59 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:00 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 13:49 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-04 20:52 -0500
            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 12:57 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:18 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:26 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 16:31 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:31 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 18:40 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:59 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 22:19 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:30 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 16:36 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 13:42 +0000
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-07 15:05 +0100
    Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-03 13:46 +0000
      Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 23:25 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-01-04 07:52 +0000
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:03 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 13:51 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:01 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 13:14 +0000
                Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-07 13:38 +0000
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-08 10:28 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 13:32 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-08 13:53 +0000
                    Re: More about RCS. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-08 15:40 +0000
                      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-08 17:07 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:06 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-10 10:23 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:25 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:24 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:10 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:21 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:00 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-04 20:45 -0500
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 04:05 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-05 10:46 -0500
              Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 16:04 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:45 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:03 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-01 08:19 -0400
    Re: More about RCS. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-04 11:00 +0100
      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 12:21 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:04 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:20 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:42 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:17 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:34 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 18:46 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:48 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 22:25 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:28 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:32 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:53 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-11 15:32 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-12 16:37 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-10 22:19 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 22:41 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-11 07:40 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:58 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:56 +0100

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#146335

From"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid>
Date2025-01-06 20:17 +0100
Message-ID<lu2oioFkkffU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146261
On 5 Jan 2025 14:42:28 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>   I think 's|b' refers to the read check mark, not RCS itself, as he
> says "Turned off the typing indicator as well." If RCS is turned off,
> there's no typing indicator to turn off (or on).

Finally, someone understands! (-;

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146269

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-05 17:34 +0100
Message-ID<vlecad$28a1e$2@solani.org>
In reply to#146258
On 05.01.25 15:20, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 13:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 12:21:
>>
>>> On 04.01.25 11:00, s|b wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:55:06 -0500, micky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RCS has this cool service.  When you send a text, it shows a little
>>>>> circle with a check mark in it. When the other party receives the text,
>>>>> it shows also an overlapping little circle with a check mark. When the
>>>>> other party READS the text I've sent, it shows both circles in blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOw cool is that.
>>>>
>>>> I turned that off, so you won't see anything when you text me. Turned
>>>> off the typing indicator as well.
>>>
>>> Voilà! Same here.
>>
>> Well - the typing indicator is understandable. But why disabling RCS
>> completely? What's wrong with using RCS at all?
> 
> Nothing. He just has that mania.

You seem not to understand all the fallacies of RCS. Especially the
almost toal lack of privacy and security. And that little rest that
remains is in the hands of evil Google.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146278

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-05 18:46 +0100
Message-ID<ltvus7F52ggU6@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146269
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 17:34:

> On 05.01.25 15:20, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-05 13:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>>> Well - the typing indicator is understandable. But why disabling RCS
>>> completely? What's wrong with using RCS at all?
>>
>> Nothing. He just has that mania.
> 
> You seem not to understand all the fallacies of RCS. Especially the
> almost toal lack of privacy and security. And that little rest that
> remains is in the hands of evil Google.

Who ever expected privacy when using SMS or E-Mail without S/MIME or
PGP/GnuPH? Why should this be different with RCS? You also tell people
not to send SMS or e-mails to you, because they are not encrypted?

-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146292

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-05 21:48 +0100
Message-ID<gq7r4lx0ej.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146278
On 2025-01-05 18:46, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 17:34:
> 
>> On 05.01.25 15:20, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-05 13:04, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Well - the typing indicator is understandable. But why disabling RCS
>>>> completely? What's wrong with using RCS at all?
>>>
>>> Nothing. He just has that mania.
>>
>> You seem not to understand all the fallacies of RCS. Especially the
>> almost toal lack of privacy and security. And that little rest that
>> remains is in the hands of evil Google.
> 
> Who ever expected privacy when using SMS or E-Mail without S/MIME or
> PGP/GnuPH? Why should this be different with RCS? You also tell people
> not to send SMS or e-mails to you, because they are not encrypted?

They are not encrypted if you are using iphones, but they are on 
Android. They refuse to encrypt RCS, because the current technology was 
invented by Google instead of being an standard. Google offered to help 
Apple, but they refused.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146296

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-05 22:25 +0100
Message-ID<vletd0$28itl$2@solani.org>
In reply to#146292
On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Google offered to help 
> Apple, but they refused.

*ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
Are you sure you understand the mechanics?

At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
information irrespective what Google says.

Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146371

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-10 18:28 +0100
Message-ID<lud3l1Facr3U6@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146296
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:

> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Google offered to help 
>> Apple, but they refused.
> 
> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
> 
> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
> information irrespective what Google says.
> 
> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.

FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146374

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-10 20:32 +0100
Message-ID<r7985lx8gs.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146371
On 2025-01-10 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
> 
>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Google offered to help
>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>
>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>
>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>
>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
> 
> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.

Ah, yes, true. FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level. 
Thank you for noticing. Same for WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146387

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-11 12:53 +0100
Message-ID<luf4d7Fkbk4U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146374
Carlos E.R., 2025-01-10 20:32:

> On 2025-01-10 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>
>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Google offered to help
>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>
>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>
>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>
>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>
>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
> 
> Ah, yes, true. FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level. 
> Thank you for noticing. Same for WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal...

Signal is Open Source.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146392

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-11 15:32 +0100
Message-ID<l1ca5lxuqd.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146387
On 2025-01-11 12:53, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-10 20:32:
> 
>> On 2025-01-10 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>>
>>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> Google offered to help
>>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>>
>>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>>
>>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>>
>>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>>
>>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
>>
>> Ah, yes, true. FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level.
>> Thank you for noticing. Same for WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal...
> 
> Signal is Open Source.

Ok, but not fully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Licensing

Signal's servers are partially open source, but the server software's 
anti-spam component is proprietary and closed source due to security 
concerns.[13][191]

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146397

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-12 16:37 +0100
Message-ID<lui5tsF53ugU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146392
Carlos E.R., 2025-01-11 15:32:

> On 2025-01-11 12:53, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> Signal is Open Source.
> 
> Ok, but not fully.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Licensing
> 
> Signal's servers are partially open source, but the server software's 
> anti-spam component is proprietary and closed source due to security 
> concerns.[13][191]

Yes - but that's no problem, since the important thing is the encryption
in the *client* which is not done on the server.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146377

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-10 22:19 +0100
Message-ID<vls2ta$23nel$1@solani.org>
In reply to#146371
On 10.01.25 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
> 
>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Google offered to help 
>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>
>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>
>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>
>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
> 
> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.

Android is proprietary from A to Z, stupid.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146379

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-10 22:41 +0100
Message-ID<7pg85lx7nr.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146377
On 2025-01-10 22:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 10.01.25 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>
>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Google offered to help
>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>
>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>
>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>
>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>
>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
> 
> Android is proprietary from A to Z, stupid.

Insulting, you too?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146385

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-11 07:40 +0100
Message-ID<vlt3pp$2ftf3$1@solani.org>
In reply to#146379
On 10.01.25 22:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-10 22:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 10.01.25 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>>
>>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> Google offered to help
>>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>>
>>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>>
>>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>>
>>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>>
>>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
>>
>> Android is proprietary from A to Z, stupid.
> 
> Insulting, you too?

At one point you will perhaps understand that not the OS is critical it
is the encryption-algo.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146389

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-11 12:58 +0100
Message-ID<luf4mvFkbk4U4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146385
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-11 07:40:

> On 10.01.25 22:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-10 22:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 10.01.25 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> Google offered to help
>>>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>>>
>>>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>>>
>>>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>>>
>>>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>>>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
>>>
>>> Android is proprietary from A to Z, stupid.
>>
>> Insulting, you too?
> 
> At one point you will perhaps understand that not the OS is critical it
> is the encryption-algo.

And iMessage is open source, so the implementation of the encryption can
be audited? If so - where is the code available?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146388

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-11 12:56 +0100
Message-ID<luf4jdFkbk4U3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146377
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-10 22:19:

> On 10.01.25 18:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 22:25:
>>
>>> On 05.01.25 21:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Google offered to help 
>>>> Apple, but they refused.
>>>
>>> *ROTFLSTC*! Apple urgently needs help from Google!
>>> Are you sure you understand the mechanics?
>>>
>>> At the network interfaces/borders the NSA has real time access to all
>>> information irrespective what Google says.
>>>
>>> Proprietary standards are lacking trust at any level.
>>
>> FaceTime and iMessage are lacking trust at any level - because they are
>> proprietary. The same applies to iOS in general - it is proprietary.
> 
> Android is proprietary from A to Z, stupid.

Maybe you confuse "Google services" with "Android".

Also see <https://source.android.com> and keep in mind that there are
Android distributions like LineageOS and e/OS/ which even come without
any Google services. There are also implementations like microG
(<https://github.com/microg>) which provide a free re-implementation of
user space apps and libraries to allow the use of Google services
without proprietary code.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web