Texting a Green Bubble will feel as native as engaging another iPhone
user on iMessage.
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by default for RCS texts.
What the article does not clarify is whether Android will also implement
this (Google uses its own encryption method), and so what will happen to cross platform messages.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:40:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Texting a Green Bubble will feel as native as engaging another iPhone
user on iMessage.
While this is welcome news, my instant reaction was "OMG", Apple was
forced, finally, to make their iPhone begin to work in the real world.
This is going to fundamentally impact Apple's strategy of never testing the iPhone in the real world (which is one reason why iOS is so damn buggy).
But more than the impact of having to test an iPhone with other phones,than Apple
Apple is slowly being forced to do what's right for its customer base.
No wonder Federighi said there's nothing that terrifies him more
actually working in the real world when he was asked about this long ago.
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-will-fully-encrypt-rcs-messages-between-androids-and-iphones-2000576303>
*Apple Will Fully Encrypt RCS Messages Between Androids and iPhones*
Texting a Green Bubble will feel as native as engaging another iPhone
user on iMessage.
Google's side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by >>> default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
Are you sure?
https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10252671?hl=en
when I last asked Andy what he pined for in RCS, it was "net-based"
texting (SMS/MMS) because of how they're charged for texts in the UK.
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-will-fully-encrypt-rcs-messages-between-androids-and-iphones-2000576303>[...]
What the article does not clarify is whether Android will also implement
this (Google uses its own encryption method), and so what will happen to cross platform messages.
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by >> default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
What the article does not clarify is whether Android will also implement
this (Google uses its own encryption method), and so what will happen to
cross platform messages.
They will not because Apple will not apply a proprietary encryption
under Google's control.
You confused some things here: the question was, if *Google* will
implement MLS as well. And I don't see any reason, why Google should
not change to MLS. MLS makes their proprietary solution obsolete.
What the article does not clarify is whether Android will also implement
this (Google uses its own encryption method), and so what will happen to
cross platform messages.
Since MLS will become part of RCS, Google would be stupid not to
implement it. In fact when MLS is implemented, there is no need to keep
the proprietary solution in place - maybe just as a fall back for old devices.
when I last asked Andy what he pined for in RCS, it was "net-based"
texting (SMS/MMS) because of how they're charged for texts in the UK.
Since apple implemented RCS, I haven't 'hounded' my iPhone-using friends
to upgrade/enable it, but they do seem to be doing it.
If the RCS 3.0 protocol exists, there's no reason for Google to stick
with their proprietary encryption, so it feels like once apple and
google have been through a round of upgrades, we will get
interoperability (which we already have) with encryption (which we
don't) ...
What's interesting though is how it will work when the Internet sucks.
Nothing can happen until the two devices exchange the keys, right?
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-17 21:32:
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by >>> default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
No, this is correct. When you communicate with other Google users, E2EE
is default for RCS.
You confused some things here: the question was, if *Google* will
implement MLS as well. And I don't see any reasone, why Google should
not change to MLS. MLS makes their proprietary solution obsolete.
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-17 21:32:
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by >>> default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
No, this is correct. When you communicate with other Google users, E2EE
is default for RCS.
On 18.03.25 12:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-17 21:32:
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by >>>> default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
No, this is correct. When you communicate with other Google users, E2EE
is default for RCS.
Bullshit. The encryption is broken up at network borders.
You confused some things here: the question was, if *Google* will
implement MLS as well. And I don't see any reasone, why Google should
not change to MLS. MLS makes their proprietary solution obsolete.
Who cares? You do not understand what the core of the whole story is.
Apple users simply do not want to use RCS. With or without enryption.
It is an inferior service with absolutely no added value.
On 2025-03-18 22:25, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 12:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-17 21:32:
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by
default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
No, this is correct. When you communicate with other Google users, E2EE
is default for RCS.
Bullshit. The encryption is broken up at network borders.
You confused some things here: the question was, if *Google* will
implement MLS as well. And I don't see any reasone, why Google should
not change to MLS. MLS makes their proprietary solution obsolete.
Who cares? You do not understand what the core of the whole story is.
Apple users simply do not want to use RCS. With or without enryption.
It is an inferior service with absolutely no added value.
ROTFL!
I have a Swiss friend who told me how a friend of his using an iphone is
very happy now because she now has RCS and can exchange messages with
photos and videos with friends of hers that may or may not have an iphone.
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities
are against :-p
What's interesting though is how it will work when the Internet sucks.
Nothing can happen until the two devices exchange the keys, right?
Does the internet suck sufficiently to stop you logging in to amazon,
that needs a key exchange ...
On 18.03.25 23:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-18 22:25, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 12:15, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-17 21:32:
On 17.03.25 19:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
As for
Google’s side of things, Android users already have E2EE between them by
default for RCS texts.
This is simply wrong.
No, this is correct. When you communicate with other Google users, E2EE >>>> is default for RCS.
Bullshit. The encryption is broken up at network borders.
You confused some things here: the question was, if *Google* will
implement MLS as well. And I don't see any reasone, why Google should
not change to MLS. MLS makes their proprietary solution obsolete.
Who cares? You do not understand what the core of the whole story is.
Apple users simply do not want to use RCS. With or without enryption.
It is an inferior service with absolutely no added value.
ROTFL!
I have a Swiss friend who told me how a friend of his using an iphone is
very happy now because she now has RCS and can exchange messages with
photos and videos with friends of hers that may or may not have an iphone.
For this purpose a selection of messengers exist for many years which
are more versatile and much more trustworthy.
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities
are against :-p
More nonsense.
Marion wrote:Unlimited calls+texts with a fixed block of e.g. 20GB data is pretty
Since I'm across the pond from you, I don't pay extra for anything, as we
typically get unlimited everything for about $25/month per device
$25 for everything?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 18:20:50 +0000, Andy Burns wrote :
What's interesting though is how it will work when the Internet sucks.
Nothing can happen until the two devices exchange the keys, right?
Does the internet suck sufficiently to stop you logging in to amazon,
that needs a key exchange ...
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I was just trying to figure out how RCS/MLS works, in terms of what happens if one or both are offline.
But after searching for how RCS/MLS works, I found they have a queuing mechanism, a key exchange store mechanism, & a fallback to SMS/MMS
mechanism. This, of course, is to be expected. I just didn't know it.
Now I do. (At least to a level useful to me on a flaky connection.)
Since I'm across the pond from you, I don't pay extra for anything, as we typically get unlimited everything for about $25/month per device, so my
only need for RCS/MLS is to get clear non-blurry media from iPhones.
Personally, even as I'm a privacy guy, I don't care about encryption.
But it would be nice to be able to communicate with iPhone users.
Without having to use WhatsApp (which is better in all ways than Messages).
So I'll install an RCS/MLS capable messenger on Android when they arrive.
The problem for me is I really love the functionality of the last known
good version of PulseSMS; which doesn't support RCS.
When there's a non-Google messenger for Android that supports RCS/MLS,
that's the one I'll test out, as I've tested all the free SMS/MMS apps.
On 2025-03-19 02:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 23:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities >>> are against :-p
More nonsense.
Whatsapp is forbidden for the Swiss military. And also other
institutions. This is a known fact.
Unlimited calls+texts with a fixed block of e.g. 20GB data is prettySince I'm across the pond from you, I don't pay extra for anything, as we >>> typically get unlimited everything for about $25/month per device
$25 for everything?
cheap here (around L10/month), but unlimited data was expensive (e.g.
upwards of L40/month)
Now there are a handful offering unlimited everything for �15/month.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Marion wrote:Unlimited calls+texts with a fixed block of e.g. 20GB data is pretty
Since I'm across the pond from you, I don't pay extra for anything,
as we
typically get unlimited everything for about $25/month per device
$25 for everything?
cheap here (around £10/month), but unlimited data was expensive (e.g. upwards of £40/month)
Now there are a handful offering unlimited everything for £15/month.
According to my bill:
Magenta Military $90 (3 lines) unlimited voice/text/data
Equipment Fees $51.67 (2 iPhone 15)
Netflix Standard $0.00
-------------------
Monthly Bill $141.67 taxes included
What's all this with multiple lines? Is this a common US thing? I looked at t-mobile USA and the minimum they seemed to want to sell was 4 lines. What does the single person do?
https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans
Ah ok. $50 plus taxes and fees (how much does that add?) for 50 Gb data
seems expensive. What happens when you�ve used the 50 Gb �premium� data? Do you get a very slow connection?
I pay the equivalent of $19 in the UK for 50 Gb data and free European
(note European, not just EU) roaming with Vodafone. Call and texts are unlimited. There are cheaper providers with various trade offs, eg poor
rural coverage or a congested network.
I have a Swiss friend who told me how a friend of his using an iphone is >>> very happy now because she now has RCS and can exchange messages withFor this purpose a selection of messengers exist for many years which
photos and videos with friends of hers that may or may not have an iphone. >>
are more versatile and much more trustworthy.
For some reason, this person can not use them. One reason is that she
has to find out which messenger the other side is using; being several,
it becomes more useful to use RCS which everybody has.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:12:16 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote :
What the article does not clarify is whether Android will alsoSince MLS will become part of RCS, Google would be stupid not to
implement this (Google uses its own encryption method), and so what
will happen to cross platform messages.
implement it. In fact when MLS is implemented, there is no need to keep
the proprietary solution in place - maybe just as a fall back for old
devices.
Google is already on record for adopting MLS the same time Apple does.
What's interesting though is how it will work when the Internet sucks.
Nothing can happen until the two *devices* exchange the keys, right?
Apparently the fallback will be two-fold if there is no Internet:
a. Queue the message for a while, and, if necessary... b. Eventually
fall back to SMS/MMS
But the fallback will be *different* depending on WHO is offline!
I use the last known good version of PulseSMS so I don't have RCS, but apparently those with Google Messages have to set an option to get that. Automatically resend as SMS/MMS = on/off
On 19.03.25 11:07, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-19 02:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 23:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities >>>> are against :-p
More nonsense.
Whatsapp is forbidden for the Swiss military. And also other
institutions. This is a known fact.
RCS is forbidden as well. Your counter party is obviously not member of
a security related service.
BTW: You look very childish. Really. And you must be a bored old man.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:07:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Back to your friend's problem, there are only two "good" solutions:
a. She has to find a VOIP messenger that all her friends are using
b. Or, she has to ask all her friends to buy her an iPhone :)
I have the same problem she has, but we've solved it using WhatsApp.
She solved it by using RCS.
On 2025-03-19 17:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.03.25 11:07, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-19 02:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 23:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities >>>>> are against :-p
More nonsense.
Whatsapp is forbidden for the Swiss military. And also other
institutions. This is a known fact.
RCS is forbidden as well. Your counter party is obviously not member of
a security related service.
Care to provide a link supporting this?
On 22.03.25 15:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-19 17:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.03.25 11:07, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-19 02:08, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 18.03.25 23:11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I forget why it has to be rcs. He told the history, but I do not
remember it. Maybe they don't have WhatsApp, which the Swiss authorities >>>>>> are against :-p
More nonsense.
Whatsapp is forbidden for the Swiss military. And also other
institutions. This is a known fact.
RCS is forbidden as well. Your counter party is obviously not member of
a security related service.
Care to provide a link supporting this?
Yes. BTW: Swisscom the market leader with a market share of 60% still
does not offer RCS at all for iPhone users. Salt the smallest network operator does. My Pixel is running on their network.
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
On 2025-03-24 21:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody
wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
So, you back out. RCS is not forbidden in Switzerland. Thank you.
As for your other saying, millions of RCS users worldwide contradict you.
On 25.03.25 14:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-24 21:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
So, you back out. RCS is not forbidden in Switzerland. Thank you.
It isn't. Nobody said that. Learn to read und in particular to understand.
As for your other saying, millions of RCS users worldwide contradict you.
Compared to messengers it is almost nil.
On 25.03.25 14:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-03-24 21:40, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
So, you back out. RCS is not forbidden in Switzerland. Thank you.
It isn't. Nobody said that. Learn to read und in particular to understand.
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody
wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers offer.
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is
different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers
offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for e-mail and not mandatory.
Besides that PGP and S/MIME both had vulnerabilities:
<https://efail.de/>
On 2025-03-27 10:32, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is >>>>>> different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>>>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers >>> offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for
e-mail and not mandatory.
Normal people find it difficult to use. I have only succeeded using it
it with computer geeks, not with lawyers or banks.
On 2025-03-27 10:32, Arno Welzel wrote:
J�rg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
J�rg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is >>>>> different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers >> offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for e-mail and not mandatory.
Normal people find it difficult to use. I have only succeeded using it
it with computer geeks, not with lawyers or banks.
Carlos E.R. <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-03-27 10:32, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is >>>>>>> different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody >>>>>> wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers >>>> offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for
e-mail and not mandatory.
Normal people find it difficult to use. I have only succeeded using it
it with computer geeks, not with lawyers or banks.
Just attach the .eml file in a WhatsApp message! :-)
On 2025-03-28 19:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-03-27 10:32, Arno Welzel wrote:
J�rg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
J�rg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is >>>>>>> different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody
wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers >>>> offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for >>> e-mail and not mandatory.
Normal people find it difficult to use. I have only succeeded using it
it with computer geeks, not with lawyers or banks.
Just attach the .eml file in a WhatsApp message! :-)
Hum! No idea if whatsapp encrypts attachments. Not all email clients do.
Reminds me of a different issue: whatsapp backups. By default, they are
not encrypted. I tried to enable encryption for a month or so, but most
days it failed. In the end, I had to disable it.
There is a court case here where the accused deletes everything
periodically, so the court is now trying to get access to the backups.
Yes, both Google and Whatsapp have promised to help.
Carlos E.R. <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-03-28 19:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-03-27 10:32, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-26 15:36:
On 26.03.25 14:10, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-03-24 21:40:
On 24.03.25 14:31, Carlos E.R. wrote:
I don't see the link. You said "RCS is forbidden as well", which is >>>>>>>>> different of "not supported".
I repeat it for you and Arlen: Nobody needs RCS and in particular nobody
wants it. It is an inferior and insecure service. Full stop.
E-Mail is also insecure and still used world wide nevertheless.
Asymmetric encryption for e-mail exists.
OpenPGP und S/MIME are much more powerful than anything these messengers >>>>>> offer.
Yes, but both are not used widely used since encryption is optional for >>>>> e-mail and not mandatory.
Normal people find it difficult to use. I have only succeeded using it >>>> it with computer geeks, not with lawyers or banks.
Just attach the .eml file in a WhatsApp message! :-)
Hum! No idea if whatsapp encrypts attachments. Not all email clients do.
A WhatsApp message is end-to-end encrypted, including any attachments, media, etc.. So the sender and recipient can see the .eml file in the
clear, but no-one else can.
BTW, of course my 'suggestion' was in jest.
Reminds me of a different issue: whatsapp backups. By default, they are
not encrypted. I tried to enable encryption for a month or so, but most
days it failed. In the end, I had to disable it.
I think that's a general issue of one's Google Account storage. Is it encrypted or not? I encrypt my Google Drive backup, but don't know about
the other parts, i.e. WhatsApp backup, Gmail, others.
There is a court case here where the accused deletes everything
periodically, so the court is now trying to get access to the backups.
Yes, both Google and Whatsapp have promised to help.
Interesting. Keep us posted.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:45:57 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,813 |
