Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #143306 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-06 21:22 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-21 14:28 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 51 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-06 21:22 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-09-06 20:59 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-08 17:02 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-07 22:33 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-07 21:39 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-09 20:37 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-09-10 14:35 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-10 17:47 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-09-10 15:58 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-10 18:36 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-10 18:21 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-11 18:07 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-11 18:49 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:43 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-14 20:50 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:36 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-19 21:32 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-19 20:47 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 13:07 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-20 14:30 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 20:25 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-20 21:42 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 22:38 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 12:24 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-21 15:02 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:27 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 18:03 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-21 13:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 15:23 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 18:04 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:53 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:21 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-12 13:11 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-12 16:24 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:44 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-15 15:56 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:31 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 23:05 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 11:15 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-11 18:13 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-11 18:55 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 20:41 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-12 06:43 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 20:26 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:48 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:38 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-21 14:28 +0100
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-20 20:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m9r0skxsk1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #143421 |
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >> Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >> >> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... > > It isn't anywhere. LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody has it. Even banks assume you have it. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-20 21:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vckj72$e4hq$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143423 |
On 20.09.24 20:25, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>> >>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >> >> It isn't anywhere. > > LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody > has it. Even banks assume you have it. That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket money with WhatsApp. EOD. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-20 22:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c331skx8lp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #143425 |
On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 20.09.24 20:25, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>>> >>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >>> >>> It isn't anywhere. >> >> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >> has it. Even banks assume you have it. > > That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in > Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. LOL! > > I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally > because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best > practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. > > Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket > money with WhatsApp. LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. > > EOD. > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vclt6p$hhtc$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143428 |
Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in >> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. > > LOL! > >> >> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally >> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. >> >> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket >> money with WhatsApp. > > LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 12:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcmktu.u94.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143432 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > > On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in > >> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. > > > > LOL! > > > >> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally > >> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best > >> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. > >> > >> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket > >> money with WhatsApp. > > > > LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary. The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL. That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 15:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tos2skxqm8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #143438 |
On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: >> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in >>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. >>> >>> LOL! >>> >>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally >>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. >>>> >>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket >>>> money with WhatsApp. >>> >>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html > > Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary. > > The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They > were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. > Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL. Ah, good point. I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk an illegality. > That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that > people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks > > But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at > the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcmhjd$1k4ft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143439 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >>>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in >>>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. >>>> >>>> LOL! >>>> >>>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally >>>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >>>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket >>>>> money with WhatsApp. >>>> >>>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. >>> >>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html >> >> Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary. >> >> The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They >> were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. >> Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL. > > Ah, good point. It's also not specific to whatsapp. They also using imessage and signal. The NYT is paywalled for me. This site you can read more details. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/banks-hit-549-million-fines-use-signal-whatsapp-evade-regulators-rcna98790 > I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which > is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk > an illegality. Not disagreeing with you, but big banks are often caught doing illegal acts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcn8r0.vjk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143439 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > >>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in > >>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous. > >>> > >>> LOL! > >>> > >>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally > >>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best > >>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket > >>>> money with WhatsApp. > >>> > >>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant. > >> > >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html > > > > Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary. > > > > The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They > > were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. > > Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL. > > Ah, good point. I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which > is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk > an illegality. Jörg has been repeatedly spreading these lies and they have been debunked many times, but he just continues. Boggles the mind. And - as others have mentioned and Jörg now also admits - other IM systems - such as Signal, iMessage et al - (and any other non-certified means of electronic communication for that matter) have the same problems, so singleling out WhatsApp says everything about Jörg's agenda and nothing about WhatsApp. > > That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that > > people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks > > > > But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at > > the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vclt7t$hhtc$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143423 |
Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>> >>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >> >> It isn't anywhere. > > LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody > has it. Even banks assume you have it. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 13:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <etn2skxf1p.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #143433 |
On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>>> >>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >>> >>> It isn't anywhere. >> >> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >> has it. Even banks assume you have it. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html That's there, not here. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 15:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcmhd9$f2r9$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143437 |
Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>>>> >>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >>>> >>>> It isn't anywhere. >>> >>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >>> has it. Even banks assume you have it. >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html > > That's there, not here. There is here: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en In Europe the same rules apply. BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious reasons. Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and accepted documentation of client communication. You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern business at all. -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcn8rr.vjk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143441 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > > On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > >>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: > >>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a > >>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You > >>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this > >>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... > >>>> > >>>> It isn't anywhere. > >>> > >>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody > >>> has it. Even banks assume you have it. > >> > >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html > > > > That's there, not here. > > There is here: > > https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en > > In Europe the same rules apply. > BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for > business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious > reasons. You keep claiming that. You keep failing to provide proof of such a prohibition and we keep giving counter examples of WhatsApp *being* used for "business purposes". > Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the > banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and > accepted documentation of client communication. Nope, it's not impossible. It may be that some institutions have chosen not to *implement* such archival of client communication, but that's their *choice*, not a technical - or other - impossibility. > You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern > business at all. Please choose which logical fallacy best fits your 'argument': Straw man? Red herring? Other?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcnip5$1p071$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143441 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >> On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >>>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >>>>> >>>>> It isn't anywhere. >>>> >>>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >>>> has it. Even banks assume you have it. >>> >>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html >> >> That's there, not here. > > There is here: > > https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en > > In Europe the same rules apply. > BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for > business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious > reasons. Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the > banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and > accepted documentation of client communication. How come the UK Covid enquiry has been able to access the WA messages of the cabinet and civil service then? > You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern > business at all. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcmh80$1k358$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #143433 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.: >> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap. >>>> >>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ... >>> >>> It isn't anywhere. >> >> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >> has it. Even banks assume you have it. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html This is internal bank use of WhatsApp as well as iMessage and Signal for business discussions. Which is against SEC regulations. Nothing to do with customer interactions which businesses can choose whatever form suits their customers. In Spain, it's commonly whatsapp. Italy also has a strong culture of whatsapp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 10:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcgo9b$c6e1$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143369 |
On 14.09.24 17:43, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >> Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for >> you to use WA? > > Wat de boer niet kent, dat eet hij niet. Das ist ein deutsches Sprichwort. > (What the uneducated person doesn't know, he won't eat.) I do not need a translation. > They're just afraid of the unknown... and lazy. My mother is alsmost 74. > She's got an iPhone with WA /and/ Signal. And iMsg. Already three. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-12 13:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86r09pdqcp.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143348 |
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >> > I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message >> > to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. > >> That is why nobody switched. > > They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2 > messengers. > >> > My most important >> > contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using >> > Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS. > >> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares? > > Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't > reach me on WA anymore. Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-12 16:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vbuti8$5ahv$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143355 |
On 12.09.24 14:11, Richmond wrote: > "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes: > >> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> >>>> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message >>>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. >> >>> That is why nobody switched. >> >> They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2 >> messengers. >> >>>> My most important >>>> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using >>>> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS. >> >>> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares? >> >> Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't >> reach me on WA anymore. > > Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to > communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE? +1 -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-14 17:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lklpbqFgepU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143355 |
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:11:02 +0100, Richmond wrote: > Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to > communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE? Come again? I would have to set that up on my end (how?), but also at their end, right? -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-15 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86plp5rmnl.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143370 |
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:11:02 +0100, Richmond wrote: > >> Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to >> communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE? > > Come again? I would have to set that up on my end (how?), but also at > their end, right? We're talking about the future. I expect Whatsapp will provide some kind of API. If Signal decides to interoperate, which is a big if, then I imagine it would be possible to send a message from signal to <phonenumber>@whatsapp or something like that. I don't know why this would be worse than sending an SMS, as SMS is typically received by Google Messages, and then who knows what happens to the meta data, or the message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcgr1f$c7vd$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143375 |
On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote: > If Signal decides to interoperate, What I really doubt. They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using Signal and not WA. For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the "original"? In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of promoting it. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web