The information I have is from a Spanish paper, which you can read with
google translate, or find an English language source.

<https://www.elespanol.com/elandroidelibre/noticias-y-novedades/20240705/google-messages-cambia-siempre-nuevo-protocolo-mensajeria-proteger-mensajes/868163289_0.html>

Google and the RCS protocol have been part of the discourse with which
they have been attacking Apple on numerous occasions , and now the
technology giant intends to replace it with a more advanced one with
some important functions. SMS, although they are not used as much in
Spain as in the United States, will now be much more secure with the new
protocol .

The RCS protocol became essential for the Android text messaging
platform in 2019, and Apple recently added support for it with the
update to iOS 18 . The only drawback it has is that it requires both
mobiles or devices to have the same platform to ensure end-to-end
encryption of messages; an essential measure for privacy.

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. MLS is an enhanced protocol developed by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF). Its objective is to ensure communication
between apps and platforms always with the maxim that individual and
group chats are effectively encrypted.

.... continues at the link.

Further info:

<https://www.androidpolice.com/google-messages-messaging-layer-security/>

Google Messages is preparing to implement its new messaging protocol

Summary

* Evidence suggests Google Messages will soon add Messaging Layer
Security (MLS) support for end-to-end encryption.
* After Google pledged support for the standard last year, MLS is
set to become the default security layer for encryption once fully
implemented in Messages.
* Adoption outside of Google Messages remains to be seen, but MLS
looks to unify encrypted messaging across platforms and services by
implementing an encryption standard that all messaging apps can share.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:35:26 +0200 :

> 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.

Thanks Carlos for that timely information as Lord knows, the last thing
Apple wants is to play nicely with Android messaging (which isn't even a
guess on my part because I read the internal emails published during the
Epic court case deposition where that's essentially what Apple execs said).

Looking up MLS:
<https://messaginglayersecurity.rocks/>
"Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is an IETF working group building
a modern, efficient, secure group messaging protocol."

Q: Should I use this right now?
A: Yes! The protocol has been approved by the IESG and has been
published as RFC9420. There are several implementations,
of which some are open source.
<https://github.com/mlswg/mls-implementations>

I looked for an Android messaging app which supports MLS but it might take
a while as the Skyica App Finder isn't working lately for some reason.

Andrew wrote:

> 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

On 2024-07-07 01:34, Andrew wrote:
> 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?

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.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

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:
This short url https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android expands to
https://www.novabbs.com/computers/search.php?group=comp.mobile.android

This short url https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android expands to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android which is
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android

On 2024-07-07 06:43, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

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.

>
> If so, there's a privacy issue there...

No. There is not. Not as long as you can create an account with no
personally identifying information.

On 2024-07-07 15:43, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

>
>>> 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 don't care. Short links are a security issue. It means blindly
clicking on to an unknown site. And they can stop working in the future
for any reason.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. wrote:

> 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.

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.

--
s|b

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?

On 2024-07-07 11:51, 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 think a telephone number isn't equivalent to a login?

On 2024-07-07 11:51, Andrew wrote:
> 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?

No one here knows either of those things for a fact.

We know you CLAIM both of those things.

>
> 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).

An account doesn't have to be a Google account.

>
> 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?

How do you imagine messages get from your phone to someone else's
without going through a server, you idiot?

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.

On 2024-07-07 11:58, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

You do "log into" an account, you simpleton.

It might be with a SIM card, but it's the same thing.

>
> 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.

RCS and MLS are PROTOCOLS, doofus.

Services that USE those protocols will require some kind of
identification (i.e. a "login") in order to route a message from one
user of such a service to another.

For the low IQ here (that's you, Arlen):

Any service that needs to deliver messages to a recipient is going to
need that recipient to "log in" in some fashion.

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.

--
s|b

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.

Am 07.07.24 um 21:04 schrieb s|b:
> 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.

*Everything* utter nonsense.

--
"Manus manum lavat."

On 2024-07-07 13:31, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

That would depend on what data the account has about you.

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.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2024-07-07 17:58, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> 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.
>

Yup.

And the SIM card that does the "logging in" is connected to your
account, which is most definitely connected to your personal data.

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.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

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>

--
s|b

Am 08.07.24 um 16:33 schrieb s|b:
> 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>

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.

--
"Manus manum lavat."