To cover this gap, Google announced last year support for the MLS
(Messaging Layer Security) protocol that brings end-to-end encryption to Android devices.
Looking up MLS:
<https://messaginglayersecurity.rocks/>
"Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is an IETF working group building
a modern, efficient, secure group messaging protocol."
We discussed MLS nearly a year ago
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/6iWXKyYJ-UY/m/4cd8hNuIAQAJ>
Andy Burns wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:47:37 +0100 :
We discussed MLS nearly a year ago
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/6iWXKyYJ-UY/m/4cd8hNuIAQAJ>
Thank God for people who use search engines. Thanks. Much appreciated.
Whew! That's a long thread. I am not on it. I don't remember reading it.
Generally my memory is excellent, so I probably didn't even read it as I never cared for end-to-end encryption because it inherently has always required both people using the exact same server and both people having
login accounts on that server (where I don't need to say more why that's anathema for privacy).
Does this "new" MLS stuff require both those privacy-destroying things?
BTW, a new easy-to-remember Usenet search URI is this (which I made today).
https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android
Which complements the old easy-to-remember search URI I made long ago:
https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
Does this "new" MLS stuff require both those privacy-destroying things?
In the google implementation, it will require the same as the current
Google Messages app requires. This is just an (educated) guess.
BTW, a new easy-to-remember Usenet search URI is this (which I made today). >> https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android
Which complements the old easy-to-remember search URI I made long ago:
https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
I never use shorted links.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Sun, 7 Jul 2024 13:02:50 +0200 :
Does this "new" MLS stuff require both those privacy-destroying things?
In the google implementation, it will require the same as the current
Google Messages app requires. This is just an (educated) guess.
Hi Carlos,
Well then, since I don't use Google apps, may I ask the team if the Google Messages app with RCS also requires those two privacy destroying things?
Q: Does Google Messages with RCS require a login account for both users
who wish to communicate on an end-to-end encrypted chat?
A: Yes or no.
If so, there's a privacy issue there...
I assume that you have to login to the phone with the provider pin, to
power up the phone. And then requires the phone entry auth, which
normally these days it is a pattern with the finger. And normally this assumes you logged in to Android/google.
I am not going to test without that login. You try that yourself.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Sun, 7 Jul 2024 13:02:50 +0200 :
Does this "new" MLS stuff require both those privacy-destroying things?
In the google implementation, it will require the same as the current
Google Messages app requires. This is just an (educated) guess.
Hi Carlos,
Well then, since I don't use Google apps, may I ask the team if the Google Messages app with RCS also requires those two privacy destroying things?
Q: Does Google Messages with RCS require a login account for both users
who wish to communicate on an end-to-end encrypted chat?
A: Yes or no.
If so, there's a privacy issue there...
BTW, a new easy-to-remember Usenet search URI is this (which I made today). >>> https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android
Which complements the old easy-to-remember search URI I made long ago:
https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
I never use shorted links.
The long link is hard to remember:
I assume that you have to login to the phone with the provider pin, to
power up the phone. And then requires the phone entry auth, which
normally these days it is a pattern with the finger. And normally this
assumes you logged in to Android/google.
I am not going to test without that login. You try that yourself.
We know it's not compulsory to associate a google account with an
android phone, any guesses what percentage *do* have one?
Kind of pointless game as we have no way of finding out.
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which recipient.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 09:23:50 -0700, Alan wrote:
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which
recipient.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
Andy Burns wrote on Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:12:04 +0100 :
I assume that you have to login to the phone with the provider pin, to
power up the phone. And then requires the phone entry auth, which
normally these days it is a pattern with the finger. And normally this
assumes you logged in to Android/google.
I am not going to test without that login. You try that yourself.
We know it's not compulsory to associate a google account with an
android phone, any guesses what percentage *do* have one?
Kind of pointless game as we have no way of finding out.
To Andy's quite valid pragmatically sensible observation...
1. We all know I don't have a Google Account set up on my phone, and
we all know I can likely do more than most people, right?
So we know the Google Account isn't required just to do things
like messaging (which I do all day, every day, with iOS & Android
users despite the moronic Apple users not understanding that).
You just have to be intelligent about using the phone w/o Google.
That's all.
2. However.... we also know that ~99.99% of people do exactly
what the phone tells them to do - which - of course - is to
set up a Google Account on that phone - which means - to Andy's
question - I'd guess the percentage is ~99.99% (give or take)
who, like the idiotic iPhone users, blindly log into Google
servers every moment of every day of the rest of their lives.
3. So I get Andy's point that, if MLS requires a login account,
and, in fact, if MLS requires both participants to have a
login account on the same Google server, then it's not such
a privacy flaw as I make it out to be (as they're already dead).
However, that doesn't change the question nor the answer to it, right?
Q: Does RCS require both participants to log into a server or not?
Q: Does ENCRYPTED RCS require both to log into a server or not?
Q: Does MLS require both participants to log into the same server?
Any idea?
s|b wrote on Sun, 07 Jul 2024 20:51:50 +0200 :
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which
recipient.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
Oh God. The Apple religious zealot Alan Baker has infested this thread.
I've been on Usenet for decades, and he is one of only a handful of people I've plonked - as there's nothing from him that ever adds any value.
Based on what SorB quoted, Alan Baker (who is an Apple moron, by the way), thinks that we actually "log into" an account to send/receive messages.
It won't matter that none of us do that - he does it - so he thinks
everyone else does - because Apple literally requires the privacy-robbing login account to be used every day for the rest of your living life.
Anyway, every time Alan Baker posts, he subtracts value, but the point of
my question is only whether or not RCS and MLS require that login account.
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which
recipient.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
* Evidence suggests Google Messages will soon add Messaging Layer Security (MLS) support for end-to-end encryption.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:35:26 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
* Evidence suggests Google Messages will soon add Messaging Layer
Security (MLS) support for end-to-end encryption.
It's all show. The European Union wants access to our encrypted
messages, supposedly in the fight against kiddie porn. A proposition was called and they needed 65% for it to vote. 62,3% thought it was a good
idea, so no vote, not yet. They've been talking about this for years and
it's going to happen.
Signal already said they will leave Europe if this happens, because the
EU's software will break the end-to-end encryption. But Meta and Google? They'll stay and collect you (meta)data.
It's all show. The European Union wants access to our encrypted
messages, supposedly in the fight against kiddie porn. A proposition was called and they needed 65% for it to vote. 62,3% thought it was a good
idea, so no vote, not yet. They've been talking about this for years and
it's going to happen.
Signal already said they will leave Europe if this happens, because the
EU's software will break the end-to-end encryption. But Meta and Google? They'll stay and collect you (meta)data.
s|b wrote on Sun, 07 Jul 2024 21:04:22 +0200 :
It's all show. The European Union wants access to our encrypted
messages, supposedly in the fight against kiddie porn. A proposition was
called and they needed 65% for it to vote. 62,3% thought it was a good
idea, so no vote, not yet. They've been talking about this for years and
it's going to happen.
Signal already said they will leave Europe if this happens, because the
EU's software will break the end-to-end encryption. But Meta and Google?
They'll stay and collect you (meta)data.
This is good to know 'cuz the instant you log into an account on Internet servers, your metadata will throw your privacy under the bus.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 09:23:50 -0700, Alan wrote:
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which
recipient.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
On 2024-07-07 20:51, s|b wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 09:23:50 -0700, Alan wrote:
ANY MESSAGING APP is going to require some kind of login, Arlen.
How else can it possibly know which messages are going to go to which
recipient.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with
my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:15 +0200 :
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with >>> my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Hi Carlos,
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet,
and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:43:15 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
*Everything* utter nonsense.
Don't just throw a one liner at it, debunk it.
<https://netzpolitik.org/2024/etappensieg-belgien-scheitert-mit-abstimmung-zur-chatkontrolle/>
<https://www.security.nl/posting/846765/EU-voorzitter+Belgi%C3%AB+schrapt+stemming+chatcontrole+wegens+te+weinig+steun>
*Everything* utter nonsense.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:49:12 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
France killed it:They made clear that they only support the legislation
as long as it does not brake the E2E-encryption. But exactly this would
happen if the "Chatkontrolle" would be passed. Belgium did not dare to
hold a vote. It would have killed the legislation forever. And the
Germans make/made it clear that they will not and cannot for
constitutional reasons support such a law.
According to this article Germany killed it; France changed its mind
before.
<https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control>
And more important: This vote if passed had only started the legislation
process.
But you can see it coming from miles away: this is going to happen.
France killed it:They made clear that they only support the legislation
as long as it does not brake the E2E-encryption. But exactly this would happen if the "Chatkontrolle" would be passed. Belgium did not dare to
hold a vote. It would have killed the legislation forever. And the
Germans make/made it clear that they will not and cannot for
constitutional reasons support such a law.
And more important: This vote if passed had only started the legislation process.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:15 +0200 :
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS
(text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once with >>> my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Hi Carlos,
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet,
and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
In that case, where is this login you speak of when I power them up?
On 2024-07-08 04:08, Andrew wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:15 +0200 :
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS >>>> (text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once
with
my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Hi Carlos,
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet,
and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
Thus you can not make messages.
On 2024-07-07 19:08, Andrew wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:15 +0200 :
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS >>>> (text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once
with
my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Hi Carlos,
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet,
and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
In that case, where is this login you speak of when I power them up?
How can you send and receive messages with those devices?
On 2024-07-08 18:04, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-07 19:08, Andrew wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:15 +0200 :
How about telephone number. RCS can be used in the default Android SMS >>>>> (text) app, but both recipients need to support it. I tried it once
with
my brother. No login needed.
You are mistaken. There is a login to the phone when you power it up.
Hi Carlos,
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet, >>> and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
In that case, where is this login you speak of when I power them up?
How can you send and receive messages with those devices?
Any messaging platform will require some kind of login. And an SMS replacement messaging platform will require a phone number associated,
thus a SIM card active.
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet,
and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
Thus you can not make messages.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:42:05 +0200 :
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet, >>> and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
Thus you can not make messages.
Yes, but my point was Android works well without creating a mothership login/password - as long as the device has Wi-Fi Internet capabilities.
The point being that, unlike Apple devices which are designed as dumb terminals that can't do what people love about them without creating a
login to mothership Internet servers, the Android device is designed such that you never need to create an account on the device to motherships.
Now, let's take the case of a tablet/phone with a SIM card, shall we.
Now, let's take the case of a tablet/phone with a SIM card, shall we.
And you need to enter the pin code when the phone boots. That's a LOGIN.
And you probably also need to login to Google (it is a google's app),
but I am not going to test this.
How can you send and receive messages with those devices?
Any messaging platform will require some kind of login. And an SMS replacement messaging platform will require a phone number associated,
thus a SIM card active.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:42:05 +0200 :
Let's take the simplest case, which is I have a drawer full of Android
tablets in front of me, where I can easily connect them to the Internet, >>> and with that I can do everything but make cellular phone calls, right?
Thus you can not make messages.
Yes, but my point was Android works well without creating a mothership login/password - as long as the device has Wi-Fi Internet capabilities.
The point being that, unlike Apple devices which are designed as dumb terminals that can't do what people love about them without creating a
login to mothership Internet servers, the Android device is designed such that you never need to create an account on the device to motherships.
Now, let's take the case of a tablet/phone with a SIM card, shall we.
Q: What changes in terms of requiring a login/password to a mothership?
A: Nothing. There is no need to create mothership login/password.
As an example, I don't have a mothership login/password on my Android
device, and I can make/receive phone calls and make/receive MMS/SMS.
What makes anyone think I have to create a new login/password on my Android phone or tablet (which has a SIM card) just for calls & messages?
Makes no sense.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:48:26 +0200 :
How can you send and receive messages with those devices?
Any messaging platform will require some kind of login. And an SMS
replacement messaging platform will require a phone number associated,
thus a SIM card active.
Hi Carlos,
When you use "some kind of login", what I mean by a login/password account
on an Internet server is specifically setting up an account on the phone to that mothership server (e.g., to Google) which is not required on Android.
As Andy noted, plenty of people are incredibly stupid so they do set up a login/password to Google servers on their phone - but it's never required.
Hell, I must have dozens of Google email addresses and I get my mail on Android just fine *without* setting up a login/password to a Google account on my phone. But I know how a phone works. Most people are clueless.
The connection to the cellular provider is a completely different thing
than is the connection to an Internet server by the way.
If you can't tell the difference, no wonder you're saying what you did.
The fact is that an Android phone works fine WITHOUT setting up a login/password to a server on the Internet - whether you know that or not.
1. I have no Internet account set up on my phone
2. And my phone makes & receives calls just fine
3. And it makes & receives SMS/MMS texts just fine
Hell, even the dumb-terminal Apple devices can make & receive SMS/MMS texts just fine without the user having to log into Apple's mothership servers.
In summary, anyone claiming the mothership Internet account/password is required doesn't understand even the simplest of the basics of Android.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:48:26 +0200 :
How can you send and receive messages with those devices?
Any messaging platform will require some kind of login. And an SMS
replacement messaging platform will require a phone number associated,
thus a SIM card active.
Hi Carlos,
When you use "some kind of login", what I mean by a login/password account
on an Internet server is specifically setting up an account on the phone to that mothership server (e.g., to Google) which is not required on Android.
As Andy noted, plenty of people are incredibly stupid so they do set up a login/password to Google servers on their phone - but it's never required.
As Andy noted, plenty of people are incredibly stupid so they do set up a
login/password to Google servers on their phone - but it's never required.
Thank you for calling 99% of the population using androids stupid.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:07:39 +0200 :
As Andy noted, plenty of people are incredibly stupid so they do set up a >>> login/password to Google servers on their phone - but it's never required. >>Thank you for calling 99% of the population using androids stupid.
Now that we've established that anyone who says you must log into an
Internet server in order to use Android is ignorant of how phones work...
The original question that brought it up still remains unanswered...
Q: Does Google Messages with RCS/MLS require a login account for both users
who wish to communicate on an end-to-end encrypted chat?
A: Yes or no.
If so, there's a privacy issue there...
Yes. If you don't log in, how would a messaging service know where to
direct messages sent to you, you idiot?
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:46:35 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
But that works independent of any Internet login password server accounts.
Nobody on Android has to connect to the Internet with a login & password account just to use the default messaging that comes with every Android.
Not sure about MLS or RCS though, as that's not the default, is it?
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:16:09 -0700, Alan wrote:
Yes. If you don't log in, how would a messaging service know where to
direct messages sent to you, you idiot?
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
Carlos E. R. wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:07:39 +0200 :
As Andy noted, plenty of people are incredibly stupid so they do set up a >>> login/password to Google servers on their phone - but it's never required. >>Thank you for calling 99% of the population using androids stupid.
Now that we've established that anyone who says you must log into an
Internet server in order to use Android is ignorant of how phones work...
The original question that brought it up still remains unanswered...
Q: Does Google Messages with RCS/MLS require a login account for both users
who wish to communicate on an end-to-end encrypted chat?
A: Yes or no.
If so, there's a privacy issue there...
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
But that works independent of any Internet login password server accounts.
What is an "internet login password server account"?
Nobody on Android has to connect to the Internet with a login & password
account just to use the default messaging that comes with every Android.
Not sure about MLS or RCS though, as that's not the default, is it?
If you want to receive messages, you must identify yourself and
authenticate that you are the authorized recipient of those messages.
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
Incorrect.
You just do the "log in" via the SIM in your phone.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
Message requires identifying recipients.
Ergo, those recipients must provide some means of identifying themselves.
That is what logging in means.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:52:35 -0700, Alan wrote:
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app. >>>>> If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong. >>>>>
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
But that works independent of any Internet login password server
accounts.
What is an "internet login password server account"?
Nobody on Android has to connect to the Internet with a login & password >>> account just to use the default messaging that comes with every Android. >>>
Not sure about MLS or RCS though, as that's not the default, is it?
If you want to receive messages, you must identify yourself and
authenticate that you are the authorized recipient of those messages.
Your knowledge level is so lacking that it's hard to respond nicely.
If I have to explain to you what the Internet is, then you have no business making your outrageous claims that Android can't do text messaging without having to enter a login and password into an Internet server account.
Android has been doing text messaging without the Internet for a long time.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:51:33 -0700, Alan wrote:
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app.
Incorrect.
You just do the "log in" via the SIM in your phone.
If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
Message requires identifying recipients.
Ergo, those recipients must provide some means of identifying themselves.
That is what logging in means.
Please look up what the "Internet" means before continuing to make a fool
of yourself stating that a cell phone can't do text messaging without entering a login and password into a server that is on the Internet.
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app. >>>>>> If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something wrong. >>>>>>
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
But that works independent of any Internet login password server
accounts.
What is an "internet login password server account"?
Nobody on Android has to connect to the Internet with a login & password >>>> account just to use the default messaging that comes with every Android. >>>>
Not sure about MLS or RCS though, as that's not the default, is it?
If you want to receive messages, you must identify yourself and
authenticate that you are the authorized recipient of those messages.
Your knowledge level is so lacking that it's hard to respond nicely.
If I have to explain to you what the Internet is, then you have no business >> making your outrageous claims that Android can't do text messaging without >> having to enter a login and password into an Internet server account.
I never said it was a "internet server account".
Android has been doing text messaging without the Internet for a long time.
And that text messaging requires a form of logging in that's just so transparent to you, you don't notice it.
The SIM card logs you in to your cellular provider.
Do you know what "SIM" means:
"Subscriber Identity Module".
That was before a spokes-person corrected the Swedish Monster
Now that we've established that anyone who says you must log into an
Internet server in order to use Android is ignorant of how phones work...
The original question that brought it up still remains unanswered...
It has been answered. I told you to go and find out yourself. I am not interested in testing it.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:07:24 +0200 :
Now that we've established that anyone who says you must log into an
Internet server in order to use Android is ignorant of how phones work... >>>
The original question that brought it up still remains unanswered...
It has been answered. I told you to go and find out yourself. I am not
interested in testing it.
It seems you don't realize that the fact you don't know that carrier's
towers aren't the same as the Internet means you never could answer it.
Intelligent people like Andy & Arno likely can answer the RCS/MLS question.
But people like you who don't know the difference between cellular towers
and the Internet will never be able to understand anything about messaging.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:41:07 -0700, Alan wrote:
Nobody on Android has to log into a server to use their mms sms app. >>>>>>> If your Android phone requires it, then you're doing something
wrong.
What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?
The credentials to use sms/mms are stored in the SIM ...
But that works independent of any Internet login password server
accounts.
What is an "internet login password server account"?
Nobody on Android has to connect to the Internet with a login &
password
account just to use the default messaging that comes with every
Android.
Not sure about MLS or RCS though, as that's not the default, is it?
If you want to receive messages, you must identify yourself and
authenticate that you are the authorized recipient of those messages.
Your knowledge level is so lacking that it's hard to respond nicely.
If I have to explain to you what the Internet is, then you have no
business
making your outrageous claims that Android can't do text messaging
without
having to enter a login and password into an Internet server account.
I never said it was a "internet server account".
Android has been doing text messaging without the Internet for a long
time.
And that text messaging requires a form of logging in that's just so
transparent to you, you don't notice it.
The SIM card logs you in to your cellular provider.
Do you know what "SIM" means:
"Subscriber Identity Module".
I was aware you have no idea what the Internet is and therefore you don't have any clue that Android text messaging has worked fine and still works fine without entering a login & password into an account on a server on it.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:10:39 +0200 :
Now, let's take the case of a tablet/phone with a SIM card, shall we.
And you need to enter the pin code when the phone boots. That's a LOGIN.
And you probably also need to login to Google (it is a google's app),
but I am not going to test this.
WTF? What kind of slum do you live in?
If you put a hundred locks on your bedroom door, then it's YOU who has to navigate all those PIN codes - but the door is designed to work without it.
I have NEVER added a PIN code to my phone and my phone works just fine.
Nor do I have a Google Account set up on my phone and it works just fine.
Carlos E. R. wrote on Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:07:24 +0200 :
Now that we've established that anyone who says you must log into an
Internet server in order to use Android is ignorant of how phones work... >>>
The original question that brought it up still remains unanswered...
It has been answered. I told you to go and find out yourself. I am not
interested in testing it.
It seems you don't realize that the fact you don't know that carrier's
towers aren't the same as the Internet means you never could answer it.
Intelligent people like Andy & Arno likely can answer the RCS/MLS question.
But people like you who don't know the difference between cellular towers
and the Internet will never be able to understand anything about messaging.
I have NEVER added a PIN code to my phone and my phone works just fine.
Nor do I have a Google Account set up on my phone and it works just fine.
It is your decision, your responsibility, and your problem if you remove
the PIN to your phone. Similar to removing your house lock.
It seems you don't realize that the fact you don't know that carrier's
towers aren't the same as the Internet means you never could answer it.
I know this very well.
Intelligent people like Andy & Arno likely can answer the RCS/MLS question. >>
But people like you who don't know the difference between cellular towers
and the Internet will never be able to understand anything about messaging.
You are being stupid.
1. To send/receive SMS on any phone you need to activate the Subscriber Identity Module with a pin. You are free to disable the pin, that's your problem.
2. To send/receive RCS or MLS you need a certain app, currently
belonging to Google. Whether this app (besides the SIM auth) requires
you login to Google or not, is something I am not interested in testing.
You go ahead, find out, and tell us.
I have told you this from the start. You know this, I know this. Now
please stop playing games and calling the rest of the people stupid.
Carlos E.R. wrote on Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:52:55 +0200 :
It seems you don't realize that the fact you don't know that carrier's
towers aren't the same as the Internet means you never could answer it.
I know this very well.
Whew! Because that means you must understand then, that you DO NOT have to enter a login and password to an Internet server in order to messaging on Android.
For you to bring up the carriers' cell towers in this conversation simply means you understand the 1st things of the most basic messaging actions.
Leave that to the iPhone morons please - they're used to logging into an Internet server every second of their entire lives just to use Messages.
You are being stupid.
Intelligent people like Andy & Arno likely can answer the RCS/MLS question. >>>
But people like you who don't know the difference between cellular towers >>> and the Internet will never be able to understand anything about messaging. >>
No. You don't understand how messaging works on Android.
HINT: There is no need to enter a login/password into any Internet server.
1. To send/receive SMS on any phone you need to activate the Subscriber
Identity Module with a pin. You are free to disable the pin, that's your
problem.
Duh. You just called me stupid and then you say something like that which
is just about the most basic of the simplest thing about using a phone.
Whether you understand it or not, the messaging you speak of above does NOT require the user to enter a login & password to a server on the Internet.
The fact you can't comprehend that fact does not make me stupid Carlos.
2. To send/receive RCS or MLS you need a certain app, currently
belonging to Google. Whether this app (besides the SIM auth) requires
you login to Google or not, is something I am not interested in testing.
You go ahead, find out, and tell us.
Jesus Christ. After all this time you wasted of ours, you now say you never had any intention of understanding and/or helping to answer the question.
I have told you this from the start. You know this, I know this. Now
please stop playing games and calling the rest of the people stupid.
You are the one playing the childish silly games, Carlos.
1. The question NEVER had anything to do with the carriers' SMS/MMS
2. The question was whether RCS/MLS require Internet server login/passwd
Carlos E.R. wrote on Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:41:30 +0200 :
I have NEVER added a PIN code to my phone and my phone works just fine.It is your decision, your responsibility, and your problem if you remove
Nor do I have a Google Account set up on my phone and it works just fine. >>
the PIN to your phone. Similar to removing your house lock.
Carlos,
It's clear you live in the slums; I don't.
You live in abject fear of every person around you, whether that's your
wife, your kids, your own mom, your friends and neighbors; I don't.
I feel sorry for people who lock up their phones because they feel unsafe. And the fact they lock it up means they do not know how to use a phone.
Carlos E.R. wrote on Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:41:30 +0200 :
I have NEVER added a PIN code to my phone and my phone works just fine.It is your decision, your responsibility, and your problem if you remove
Nor do I have a Google Account set up on my phone and it works just fine. >>
the PIN to your phone. Similar to removing your house lock.
Carlos,
It's clear you live in the slums; I don't.
You live in abject fear of every person around you, whether that's your
wife, your kids, your own mom, your friends and neighbors; I don't.
You live in abject fear of every person around you, whether that's your
wife, your kids, your own mom, your friends and neighbors; I don't.
It also has nothing to do with "fear". Certain companies *REQUIRE* that
you protect your data, otherwise you *MUST* *NOT* work for them since
you show clear ignorance of best practices to protect data.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:25:21 +0200 :
You live in abject fear of every person around you, whether that's your
wife, your kids, your own mom, your friends and neighbors; I don't.
It also has nothing to do with "fear". Certain companies *REQUIRE* that
you protect your data, otherwise you *MUST* *NOT* work for them since
you show clear ignorance of best practices to protect data.
Hi Arno,
There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point.
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones.
We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device.
Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.
It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work in that there is no Internet server login/password required for texting despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting.
It's not.
Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.
Carlos was unaware of that fact; and Carlos appears to still be unaware. There's nothing more I can do as he insists login/passwords are required.
They're not.
But there's more to the story as this concept is a philosophical one.
It's about how to properly set up your phone for personal privacy.
Hence, we have to understand that most people don't know how to set up a cellphone, so *those people* will always need to add biometric gimmicks.
We also have to understand that MARKETING wants you to create accounts left and right, containing your personal data, which is a key failing of most people because they have automatic logins to things like email and banks.
We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.
We have to understand that if you set up your phone properly, then there's nothing you lose if/when it's stolen other than the physical phone itself.
And your texting will work fine whether or not you have Internet accounts.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:25:21 +0200 :
You live in abject fear of every person around you, whether that's your
wife, your kids, your own mom, your friends and neighbors; I don't.
It also has nothing to do with "fear". Certain companies *REQUIRE* that
you protect your data, otherwise you *MUST* *NOT* work for them since
you show clear ignorance of best practices to protect data.
Hi Arno,
There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point.
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones.
We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device.
Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.
It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work in that there is no Internet server login/password required for texting despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting.
It's not.
Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.
We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.
There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point.
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
A "proper setup" *is* locking it down by at least using a screen pattern
or PIN to protect it.
It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones.
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't
talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device.
Also for personal use devices I prefer to have at least basic protection.
Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that >> an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.
Only, if you do not use apps which *require* login/password - for
example for Google Pay you *must* enable some kind of lock screen. Also
for some bankinkg apps you *must* enable a lock screen.
It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work >> in that there is no Internet server login/password required for texting
despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting.
Yes, if you defined "texting" as "using SMS".
Even RCS already requires internet.
It's not.
Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.
No, only SMS works fine without any connection to the internet. And this
has nothing to do with "Android" but is a service in mobile networks.
However "Android texting" may not only be SMS.
We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data
accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.
"Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is only
true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:08 +0200 :
There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point. >>>
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
A "proper setup" *is* locking it down by at least using a screen pattern
or PIN to protect it.
Philosophy being what it is, what matters more than anything is that a
person who knows computers has a "plan" and a person who doesn't, doesn't.
My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
a. Daily use
b. Backup & restore
c. Privacy
Most people have no plan whatsoever, where I would assume you know
computers well enough to have a plan for those three things also.
Since most people have no plan at all, they have to lock it up.
I don't have to lock it at all.
And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up.
It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones. >>I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I've been using computers since the 1970s, and I've built them from scratch (Motorola 68701) so I'm well aware that people have no plan for
safeguarding their data which is why they're forced to lock them up.
Under that username/password they have no plan whatsoever for privacy.
We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't >>> talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device. >>Also for personal use devices I prefer to have at least basic protection.
All my personal data is locked up in encrypted containers on all computers.
Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that >>> an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.
Only, if you do not use apps which *require* login/password - for
example for Google Pay you *must* enable some kind of lock screen. Also
for some bankinkg apps you *must* enable a lock screen.
Again, philosophically you have to set up your computer for privacy from
the start, so, if you have Google Pay or Banking Apps, you need to lock _them_ up separately. Google doesn't design it that way but if you know how to use a computer, you will already know you can lock individual apps.
Only people who don't know anything about computers lock it up at the top.
It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work >>> in that there is no Internet server login/password required for textingYes, if you defined "texting" as "using SMS".
despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting. >>
Even RCS already requires internet.
That was my question of you and Andy (as Carlos wouldn't know anything).
If RCS or MLS require the Internet, then that's not good for privacy.
It's not.
Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.
No, only SMS works fine without any connection to the internet. And this
has nothing to do with "Android" but is a service in mobile networks.
However "Android texting" may not only be SMS.
I guess you're right that MMS uses the "Internet" in a way that doesn't require a data plan. I assume that's what you're intimating above, Right?
We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data
accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.
"Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is only
true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers.
I keep my personal data in encrypted containers. It's not hard to do.
I keep passwords in KeePassXC (Keepass2Android on the phone) too.
Philosophically, I think people who spread their data and logins about on
the phone are the ones who are forced to lock up the phone at the top.
But locking the phone or computer at the top has efficiency penalties.
It's like keeping the wife's jewelry in the living room and kitchen so that you're forced to lock the front door with a dozen padlocks just because you don't know enough to put the jewelry in its own locked safe.
The philosophical part about efficiency is:
a. You go through the front door a lot
b. You only have to open the safe infrequently
This is why I can argue with reasonable logic that anyone locking the computer or phone at the top level doesn't know how to use computers.
Or... they truly do live in the slums in abject fear of everyone around
them (which is sad that they're that deathly afraid of people they love).
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I've 'locked' my computer with a PIN code, but if they want my data,
it's on the unencrypted D: drive.
s|b wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:29:08 +0200 :
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I've 'locked' my computer with a PIN code, but if they want my data,
it's on the unencrypted D: drive.
What matters, both philosophically & technically, is you have a plan for
a. Efficient daily use
b. Easy backup & restore
c. Secure personal data
Those who don't know computers don't have a plan and hence they're forced
to lock it up (and to use "someone else's computer" to backup their data).
Back to the topic at hand, if RCS/MLS require a login/password on an
Internet server through which all the messages go, that's terrible for privacy.
Sure, the messages are encrypted; but the metadata is your privacy.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:08 +0200 :
There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point. >>>
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.
A "proper setup" *is* locking it down by at least using a screen pattern
or PIN to protect it.
Philosophy being what it is, what matters more than anything is that a
person who knows computers has a "plan" and a person who doesn't, doesn't.
My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
a. Daily use
b. Backup & restore
c. Privacy
Most people have no plan whatsoever, where I would assume you know
computers well enough to have a plan for those three things also.
Since most people have no plan at all, they have to lock it up.
I don't have to lock it at all.
And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up.
It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones. >>I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I've been using computers since the 1970s, and I've built them from scratch (Motorola 68701) so I'm well aware that people have no plan for
safeguarding their data which is why they're forced to lock them up.
Yes, if you defined "texting" as "using SMS".
Even RCS already requires internet.
That was my question of you and Andy (as Carlos wouldn't know anything).
If RCS or MLS require the Internet, then that's not good for privacy.
I guess you're right that MMS uses the "Internet" in a way that doesn't require a data plan. I assume that's what you're intimating above, Right?
"Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is only
true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers.
I keep my personal data in encrypted containers. It's not hard to do.
I keep passwords in KeePassXC (Keepass2Android on the phone) too.
Philosophically, I think people who spread their data and logins about on
the phone are the ones who are forced to lock up the phone at the top.
But locking the phone or computer at the top has efficiency penalties.
It's like keeping the wife's jewelry in the living room and kitchen so that you're forced to lock the front door with a dozen padlocks just because you don't know enough to put the jewelry in its own locked safe.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:08 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote:
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.
I've 'locked' my computer with a PIN code, but if they want my data,
it's on the unencrypted D: drive.
Internet server through which all the messages go, that's terrible for privacy.
Sure, the messages are encrypted; but the metadata is your privacy.
My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
a. Daily use
b. Backup & restore
c. Privacy
I do the same. And I use my phone daily and also as 2FA for a number of accounts. And *because* it is also used for 2FA I need some kind of protection.
And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up.
If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it safe
without any kind of lock.
I've been using computers since the 1970s, and I've built them from scratch >> (Motorola 68701) so I'm well aware that people have no plan for
safeguarding their data which is why they're forced to lock them up.
Define "safeguarding".
That was my question of you and Andy (as Carlos wouldn't know anything).
If RCS or MLS require the Internet, then that's not good for privacy.
SMS is also not good for privacy. SS7 was already compromised 10 years ago: <https://www.firstpoint-mg.com/blog/ss7-attack-guide/>
I guess you're right that MMS uses the "Internet" in a way that doesn't
require a data plan. I assume that's what you're intimating above, Right?
No. MMS uses data transmission and requires a data plan. Without a data
plan, MMS gets *very* expensive since data is then charge by its amount
where even 1 MB of data can cost more than 1 USD.
"Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is onlyI keep my personal data in encrypted containers. It's not hard to do.
true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers. >>
I keep passwords in KeePassXC (Keepass2Android on the phone) too.
This is what I call "do not store *any* personal data on it, even no
phone numbers" - because an encrypted container is not "storing data on
the phone. An encrypted container can not be used to choose a person to
call in the phone app and you can also not see any calendar entries or send/recieve messages this way.
Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already
have personal data on the phone.
Philosophically, I think people who spread their data and logins about on
the phone are the ones who are forced to lock up the phone at the top.
But locking the phone or computer at the top has efficiency penalties.
Android will *encrypt* all data on the device and if you use a lock
procedure *nobody* can access the data on the device storage at all.
Only very old devices (older than 4-5 years) may not support that.
It's like keeping the wife's jewelry in the living room and kitchen so that >> you're forced to lock the front door with a dozen padlocks just because you >> don't know enough to put the jewelry in its own locked safe.
Why "a dozen padlocks"? One lock is enough.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 13:53:41 +0200 :
My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
a. Daily use
b. Backup & restore
c. Privacy
I do the same. And I use my phone daily and also as 2FA for a number of
accounts. And *because* it is also used for 2FA I need some kind of
protection.
Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
without any kind of lock.
Huh? I have plenty of personal data on my phone in encrypted containers.
Most people lock their phone because they don't use encrypted containers.
They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure.
No. MMS uses data transmission and requires a data plan. Without a data
plan, MMS gets *very* expensive since data is then charge by its amount
where even 1 MB of data can cost more than 1 USD.
The main point is simply that any messaging that requires a login/password
to a specific Internet server is a metadata privacy hole by design.
This is what I call "do not store *any* personal data on it, even no
phone numbers" - because an encrypted container is not "storing data on
the phone. An encrypted container can not be used to choose a person to
call in the phone app and you can also not see any calendar entries or
send/recieve messages this way.
Huh? My contacts are NOT in the default sqlite file, on purpose.
But I still have my contacts in each of my communication apps.
I don't have to lock my phone just to keep my contacts private from
Internet servers (which most people upload to without even knowing it).
Even WhatsApp is used without contacts - since it doesn't need them
(if you know how a phone works - which is why I say that anyone who locks their phone, I feel sorry for - because either they live in the slums, or, they don't know how to use computers).
Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already
have personal data on the phone.
I'm actually surprised you don't understand how SMS is different from establishing a login/password on an additional Internet server, Arno.
Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?
Huh? I have plenty of personal data on my phone in encrypted containers.
No, you have them in encrypted containers. The same container can be everywhere else as well. So it is not stored on the phone itself.
Most people lock their phone because they don't use encrypted containers.
Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security concept!
They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure.
Bullshit!
The main point is simply that any messaging that requires a login/password >> to a specific Internet server is a metadata privacy hole by design.
Which is not the case for many messaging apps.
Huh? My contacts are NOT in the default sqlite file, on purpose.
You don't understand how Android storage works. There is no "default
sqlite file" for contacts.
But I still have my contacts in each of my communication apps.
Then you *have* data stored on your phone! And of course *those*
contacts are *not* in "encrypted containers".
I don't have to lock my phone just to keep my contacts private from
Internet servers (which most people upload to without even knowing it).
Enabling a screen lock has *nothing* to do with "keeping contacts
private from internet servers"!
Even WhatsApp is used without contacts - since it doesn't need them
(if you know how a phone works - which is why I say that anyone who locks
their phone, I feel sorry for - because either they live in the slums, or, >> they don't know how to use computers).
That's one reasone why I don't use WhatsApp.
Also SMS *is* personal data. So if you send or receive SMS you already
have personal data on the phone.
I'm actually surprised you don't understand how SMS is different from
establishing a login/password on an additional Internet server, Arno.
The SMS messages are personal data!
And about my knowledge: I am a software developer who also maintains
Android apps:
<https://github.com/arnowelzel/>
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 :
Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?
I said privacy. You said security.
The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing.
Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data
partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security
concept!
Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone.
I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.
Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26:
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 :
Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?
I said privacy. You said security.
The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing.
What "privacy flaw" are you talking about?
[...]
Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data
partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security
concept!
Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of
lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. >>
I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. >> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.
I give up - you don't get it.
On 2024-07-26 08:23, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26:
Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of >>> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone. >>>I give up - you don't get it.
I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone. >>> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad. >>
It's hilarious.
He talks about people who lock their phones living in "slums"...
...but those who lock the data ON their phones are perfectly normal!
LOL
Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
Think about that.
The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
Me?
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
Think about that.
It's a hundred to one. Maybe five hundred to a thousand to one.
The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
Me?
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
If you don't understand the concept by now, you never will.
So we may as well give up.
You'll never convince me that unlocking a phone a thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need your data unlocked.
And I'm never going to convince you that NOT unlocking your phone a
thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need to.
If you don't get it by now, you never will. And that's OK.
Some people enjoy being inefficient. It makes them feel better.
Andrew, 2024-07-27 05:21:
Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
Think about that.
That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
access information on it.
And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
Me?
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone, because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
only once a week would make no sense at all to me.
HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
Think about that.
That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
access information on it.
And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
Me?
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone, because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
only once a week would make no sense at all to me.
Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:53:02 +0200 :
HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how >>> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
Think about that.
That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
access information on it.
And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
Me?
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
only once a week would make no sense at all to me.
Hi Arno,
Let's give up as you're not stupid but you're not getting the point about unlocking a phone 1000 times versus only unlocking that same phone once.
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do
it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after
2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way around that.
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
Alan wrote:Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer
reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
that.
Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
Set your phone to remain unlocked so long as it can see that device. <https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6093922>
Andy Burns wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:42:39 +0100 :
Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
Set your phone to remain unlocked so long as it can see that device.
<https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6093922>
With respect to bluetooth...
Thanks for that pointer as what's interesting is my bluetooth is off unless
I need it
On 7/28/24 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
little plastic actuator that actually pushes the switch no longer
reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
So no need to use its switch in everyday use.
That means leaving it on when I'm not using it, which I don't like to do
-- especially since I use it only once in a couple of months.
I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
that.
My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.
This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
with your switch paranoia... ;)
I chose the Pixel2 because of the camera quality (and the price, of
course), which is what I mostly use it for. Nonetheless, I will take
your counsel under advisement.
On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to
do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do
after 2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any
way around that.
I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
Pushing a button...
...is "annoying"?
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer reaches the switch. I can only assume wear. I don't want to replace my phone
because of something stupid like that. I can take the tablet apart, but
the phone needs to be glued. No.
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to
fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
Rotate phone.
Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the case.. [tap/touch finger-sensor]
Re-position the camera.
Tap the circle.
Butterfly gone.
Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
good musicians. Also causes problems with object manipulation.
On 7/29/24 1:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-28 19:34, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning >>>>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to >>>>>>> do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do >>>>>>> after 2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see
any way around that.
I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
Pushing a button...
...is "annoying"?
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer
reaches the switch. I can only assume wear. I don't want to replace
my phone because of something stupid like that. I can take the
tablet apart, but the phone needs to be glued. No.
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen. >>>>>After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about
to trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have
to fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
Rotate phone.
Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the
case..
[tap/touch finger-sensor]
Re-position the camera.
Tap the circle.
Butterfly gone.
Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
good musicians. Also causes problems with object manipulation.
So your argument is that unlocking a phone with a home button is bad...
What is a home button? Do you mean power button?
...because yours happens to be broken?
Not broken; I don't like subjecting things to unnecessary wear and I'm clumsy. I'd also like the tiny fonts used by so many apps to be larger
-- WTF are they saving that whitespace for?
We all need more config options, not fewer.
On 7/29/24 9:48 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-29 21:26, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/29/24 1:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-28 19:34, The Real Bev wrote:What is a home button? Do you mean power button?
On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the
morning about half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if >>>>>>>>> I have to do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have >>>>>>>>> it set to do after 2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see >>>>>>> any way around that.
I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
Pushing a button...
...is "annoying"?
My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer
reaches the switch. I can only assume wear. I don't want to
replace my phone because of something stupid like that. I can take >>>>> the tablet apart, but the phone needs to be glued. No.
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the
screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not
about to trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture
and have to fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
Rotate phone.
Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the
case..
[tap/touch finger-sensor]
Re-position the camera.
Tap the circle.
Butterfly gone.
Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never
be good musicians. Also causes problems with object manipulation.
So your argument is that unlocking a phone with a home button is bad... >>>
Nope. I mean a home button.
It's on the bottom of some iPhones.
It's a virtual button, not a real one, and useless unless the power
button has turned the screen back on.
Let's just leave it at that, as people can disagree on philosophy as long
as they don't disagree on the facts.
For every thousand times you unlock your phone, I unlock mine once.
I consider my method efficient and your method inefficient.
As long as we agree on the facts, that's all that matters.
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every >>> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way around that.
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
The Real Bev, 2024-07-28 05:33:
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about >>>> half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every >>>> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
around that.
I don't have to push a button. Picking up the device turns on the screen already (Google Pixel 6a).
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
I pick up the device, the screen turns on and hold the "camera" icon for about 2 seconds and the camera starts.
Yes, this means also other people my "abuse" the camera. But they can
not access anything else and only see the pictures taken after using the camera in this situation.
Some devices can be configured to use the volume keys to start the
camera when locked etc..
On 2024-08-06 10:59, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Some devices can be configured to use the volume keys to start the
camera when locked etc..
On my iPhone, I can swipe to the left to get the camera without
unlocking anything else.
It's almost like Apple understood that there would be times when you
wanted to get a camera more or less immediately.
Well - if "immediately" is about 1-2 seconds - this is possible with a
Google Pixel as well 😉
Andrew, 2024-07-27 21:12:
[...]
Let's just leave it at that, as people can disagree on philosophy as long
as they don't disagree on the facts.
For every thousand times you unlock your phone, I unlock mine once.
Which is no problem for me at all. Unlocking take way less than a second
for me. It's more or less not much more hassle than just picking up the
phone and turning it on. In fact the display already turns on as soon as
I pick it up so the remaining action to unlock it is really quick.
I consider my method efficient and your method inefficient.
I consider your method as not relevant for most people. Most people use
their phones to store private data on them. And this data needs to be protected. And people do not only acces their data once or twice a day.
I use my phone also for my professional job which means I some days I it *many* times and *alway* I *must* access protected data. Decrypting a encrypted container only once a day and then leaving it vulnerable for
the whole day would not be an option.
As long as we agree on the facts, that's all that matters.
Yes, I agree that your method is easier for you. But this does not mean anything.
On 2024-08-06 10:59, Arno Welzel wrote:
The Real Bev, 2024-07-28 05:33:
On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it
every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes. >>>>
It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way >>> around that.
I don't have to push a button. Picking up the device turns on the screen
already (Google Pixel 6a).
My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble >>> with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.
I pick up the device, the screen turns on and hold the "camera" icon for
about 2 seconds and the camera starts.
Yes, this means also other people my "abuse" the camera. But they can
not access anything else and only see the pictures taken after using the
camera in this situation.
Some devices can be configured to use the volume keys to start the
camera when locked etc..
On my iPhone, I can swipe to the left to get the camera without
unlocking anything else.
It's almost like Apple understood that there would be times when you
wanted to get a camera more or less immediately.
:-)
Alan, 2024-08-06 21:11:
On 2024-08-06 10:59, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Some devices can be configured to use the volume keys to start the
camera when locked etc..
On my iPhone, I can swipe to the left to get the camera without
unlocking anything else.
It's almost like Apple understood that there would be times when you
wanted to get a camera more or less immediately.
Well - if "immediately" is about 1-2 seconds - this is possible with a
Google Pixel as well ;-)
Arno Welzel wrote:
Well - if "immediately" is about 1-2 seconds - this is possible with a
Google Pixel as well 😉
Whatever you or the phone is doing, two rapid presses of the power
button launches the camera app ... under half a second.
Whatever you or the phone is doing, two rapid presses of the power
button launches the camera app ... under half a second.
On my Motorola, I only have to agitate the phone in a certain manner,
and the camera opens.
Andy Burns wrote:
two rapid presses of the power
button launches the camera app
The camera is the default but you can set it to launch (almost?) any app.
The camera is the default but you can set it to launch (almost?) any app.
Samsungs are a bit different? Actually the pixel8a is a bit different
out of the box, a long press of the power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call) but as a gemini AI assistant button, but
you can change it to "normal"
Do the Pixels have a "Sidekey" entry in the "Advanced Features" section?Is that Samsung salvaging the 'bixby' button?
You can set that sidekey setting to bring up any app you want to bring up.
Andy Burns wrote on Sat, 10 Aug 2024 10:49:22 +0100 :
Whatever you or the phone is doing, two rapid presses of the power
button launches the camera app ... under half a second.
The camera is the default but you can set it to launch (almost?) any app. Sometimes I've set mine to the voice recorder (for MD appointments).
Other times I've set it to the flashlight (which is usually how it's set).
There used to be an app called "Tap Tap" which did the same things if you simply tapped twice on the back of the phone (dunno if it's still around).
Andrew wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
two rapid presses of the power
button launches the camera app
The camera is the default but you can set it to launch (almost?) any app.
Samsungs are a bit different? Actually the pixel8a is a bit different
out of the box, a long press of the power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call) but as a gemini AI assistant button, but
you can change it to "normal"
Andy Burns wrote:I'm a Nexus/Pixel fan, but I don't buy one *every* year. The 8a is the
the pixel8a is a bit different out of the box, a long press of the
power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call)
but as a gemini AI assistant button, but you can change it to
"normal"
It's the same with Pixel 6a, 6, 7, 7 Pro and so on...
Arno Welzel wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:I'm a Nexus/Pixel fan, but I don't buy one *every* year. The 8a is the
the pixel8a is a bit different out of the box, a long press of the
power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call)
but as a gemini AI assistant button, but you can change it to
"normal"
It's the same with Pixel 6a, 6, 7, 7 Pro and so on...
first one I have (since the 5a) that has re-purposed the power button
like that ...
I'm a Nexus/Pixel fan, but I don't buy one *every* year. The 8a is thethe pixel8a is a bit different out of the box, a long press of the
power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call)
but as a gemini AI assistant button, but you can change it to
"normal"
It's the same with Pixel 6a, 6, 7, 7 Pro and so on...
first one I have (since the 5a) that has re-purposed the power button
like that ...
I just added this for completenes. I don't have all these phones either (except the 6a).
Arno Welzel wrote on Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:05:02 +0200 :
I'm a Nexus/Pixel fan, but I don't buy one *every* year. The 8a is thethe pixel8a is a bit different out of the box, a long press of the
power button doesn't act as expected (shutdown/reboot/emerg call)
but as a gemini AI assistant button, but you can change it to
"normal"
It's the same with Pixel 6a, 6, 7, 7 Pro and so on...
first one I have (since the 5a) that has re-purposed the power button
like that ...
I just added this for completenes. I don't have all these phones either
(except the 6a).
I love the repurposed power button when used as a quick flashlight app.
I've never had a Pixel, simply because I get all my phones free, so I get whatever phone they want to give me, for free, which is currently the
Samsung Galaxy A32-5G from 2021 which is doing just fine for me.
I've never had a Pixel, simply because I get all my phones free, so I get
whatever phone they want to give me, for free, which is currently the
Samsung Galaxy A32-5G from 2021 which is doing just fine for me.
Who is "they"? Mobile network providers? They usually don't give things
away for free but instead you get this for extending the contract for
another 1 or 2 years and they charge you more for that contract compared
to those customers who don't take the "free" device. Depending on the provider the "free" device may even be more expensive this way when you
sum up the monthly fees you pay in two years.
You live in a world that is foreign to Americans, where we get plenty of phones for free, without contracts, and without any real strings attached.
But we do have to pay local sales tax on the full MSRP of our free phones.
Also the iPhones aren't free for some reason, as they're only 1/2 price.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>
We even get free tablet SIM cards for life, but at only 200 MB/month data.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
You live in a world that is foreign to Americans, where we get plenty of
phones for free, without contracts, and without any real strings attached. >>
But we do have to pay local sales tax on the full MSRP of our free phones. >>
Also the iPhones aren't free for some reason, as they're only 1/2 price.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>
We even get free tablet SIM cards for life, but at only 200 MB/month data. >> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
I can't see anynthing on the links posted - just a blank page with a
header, nothing else.
Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:29:53 +0200 :
You live in a world that is foreign to Americans, where we get plenty of >>> phones for free, without contracts, and without any real strings attached. >>>
But we do have to pay local sales tax on the full MSRP of our free phones. >>>
Also the iPhones aren't free for some reason, as they're only 1/2 price. >>> <https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>
We even get free tablet SIM cards for life, but at only 200 MB/month data. >>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
I can't see anynthing on the links posted - just a blank page with a
header, nothing else.
That's your browser then but don't worry. It was just a proof of what I
said, which is T-Mobile gave *everyone* in the USA a free 5G Android phone around the March 2021 time frame as part of their promotion of 5G coverage.
Well, everyone with a post-paid plan got that offer of a free 5G Android.
The USA is nothing like Germany when it comes to good customer service.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 148:54:35 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,565 |
