On 2024-07-10 00:06, Bill Powell wrote:
> 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.

The question was:

"What Android phone are you using which requires a login account?"

Do you see a word in there about "internet"?

And I have never said that the server to which you log in was on the
internet.

The POINT is that to use a messaging service, you must authoritatively
identify yourself to that service. It has to be authoritative because
you don't want messages intended for you to be delivered to just anyone.

The fact that the method used to authoritatively identify yourself to
your cellular provider is a SIM (Subscriber IDENTITY Module), doesn't
change the fact that is essentially a login.

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 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 2024-07-10 12:05, Bill Powell wrote:
> 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.

I know precisely what the Internet is, and I know that the topic was
whether or not messaging services need logins in order to work. The
original question doesn't suppose the particular TYPE of login.

And if your SIM card doesn't identify you as someone who has the
authority to send and receive messages...

(i.e. "log you in")

....you won't.

On 2024-07-10 12:46, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

Whether a carrier's towers aren't the same as the Internet or not (and I
know they aren't) doesn't change the fact that even SMS messaging
requires authentication that the person wanting to send and receive
messages is allowed to do so.

i.e. A login.

>
> Intelligent people like Andy & Arno likely can answer the RCS/MLS question.

Intelligent people realize that PROTOCOLS for encrypting messages aren't
what require the login.

>
> 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 2024-07-08 22:38, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

It is your decision, your responsibility, and your problem if you remove
the PIN to your phone. Similar to removing your house lock.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-07-10 21:46, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

>
>>
>> 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.

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

The fact you never understood the question, Carlos, does not make me
stupid. It just means you know nothing whatsoever about Android messaging.

Stop wasting our time with your childish games; that's what the moron
iPhone users do because they hate they're logging into Internet servers.

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.
>> 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.

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.

On 2024-07-12 14:46, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

Why do you imagine that the only kinds of servers are "internet servers"?

>
> 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.

Not to use MESSAGES. iPhones send SMS messages in exactly the same way
that Android phones to.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> No. You don't understand how messaging works on Android.
> HINT: There is no need to enter a login/password into any Internet server.

Again, you attempt to hide a straw man in your argument...

....if you're bright enough to even know it's called a "straw man".

>
>> 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 it is simple or not, it is still essentially a login.

>
> 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.

And "enter[ing] a login & password to a server on the Internet" was not
what was under discussion.

>
> 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.

Your question has been answered in that neither RCS nor MLS are
messaging SERVICES. They are protocols that messaging services can USE.

And it is the services themselves that require a login.

>
>> 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

EVERY rational messaging service requires a login of some kind.

Period.

On 2024-07-12 14:48, Andrew wrote:
> 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.
>>> 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.
>
> Carlos,

Arlen,

>
> It's clear you live in the slums; I don't.

It is clear that you don't understand that even people who don't live in
slums require security on their devices.

>
> 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.

LOL!

Andrew, 2024-07-12 23:48:

> 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.
>>> 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.
>
> Carlos,
>
> It's clear you live in the slums; I don't.

That has nothing to do where one lives. Certain applications *REQUIRE* a
kind of protection, otherwise they just refuse to work.

> 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
https://arnowelzel.de

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.

On 2024-07-15 06:03, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

Setting up a phone to lock IS setting it up properly.

Anyone can lose a phone or have it stolen.

>
> 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.

Unless you want to send and receive messages of some kind.

>
> 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.

"no Internet server login/password" is not the same as "no login".

>
> It's not.
> Android texting works fine without any connection to the Internet.

But still requires authentication. i.e. a login.

>
> 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.

Andrew, 2024-07-15 15:03:

> 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.

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
https://arnowelzel.de

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 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.

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).

On 2024-07-20 09:26, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

You just lock it differently...

....so I guess you DO live in a slum, huh?

>
>>> 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.

Only people who live in slums need encryption.

>
>
>>> 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 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.
>
> 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.

Is your front door unlocked when you're out?

>
> 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).

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.

--
s|b

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.

On 2024-07-20 17:02, Andrew wrote:
> 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

Yes. Unlocking my phone with a fingerprint or (shortly) my face is very
efficient.

> b. Easy backup & restore

My phone backs up securely to the cloud in encrypted form.

> c. Secure personal data

All the data on my phone is encrypted.

>
> 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).

Why is locking up one's computer not a part of that plan?

How do you unlock your "secure personal 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.

As I've stated before and as it has apparently not yet sunk in:

1. RCS and MLS are protocols for sending and receiving messages. Exactly
how one connects to a messaging service is not a part of them.

2. EVERY SINGLE MESSAGING SERVICE THERE IS requires you to identify
yourself and in a manner that is secured by some process. i.e. LOG IN.
That process might be unseen by you on a day to day basis, but it MUST
EXIST.

Without that, anyone can pretend to be you to the service and receive
messages (perhaps very private messages) intended for you, and can send
messages to others AS IF they were you.

The only messaging service most people use that doesn't require them to
perform the standard login of providing a username and a password, is
SMS/MMS messaging via the cellular network, but that requires your SIM
card to do it. "SIM" literally stands for "Subscriber IDENTITY Module".

When you insert the SIM provided by your cellular carrier, you make your
phone identifiable as belonging to YOU.

And if you were looking for a good reason to lock your phone with a PIN
(or fingerprint or facial recognition), there it is:

Without it, is someone gets a hold of your phone, they can send messages
that purport to be from YOU.

Andrew, 2024-07-20 18:26:

> 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

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.

> 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.

If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it safe
without any kind of lock.

>>> 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.

Define "safeguarding".

[...]
>> 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.

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 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.

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
https://arnowelzel.de

s|b, 2024-07-20 22:29:

> 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.

I don't have any unencrypted drives.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Andrew, 2024-07-21 02:02:

[...]> 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.

It doesn't. It just uses the existing internet connection.

> Sure, the messages are encrypted; but the metadata is your privacy.

No, messages are not encrypted in RCS. This is a proprietary extension
by Google and *not* part of the RCS standard. When sending RCS messages
to non-Android-devices they are not encrypted at all.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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.

But then again, my phone can't do financial transactions (again, because
it's set up with a plan in mind - and that plan includes security).

Philosophically, I set up my phone for
a. Efficient constant use (i.e., no lock screens), and,
b. All my important data is secure and easily backed up, and,
c. Everything I do on the phone is designed to be done with privacy.
>> 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.

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.

That's why people who don't know anything about phones, lock them up.
It's sad so many people live in the scary slums, figuratively speaking.

>> 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".

Well, I could write a lot about safeguarding because what's different about
me is I'm not clueless like every person who locks their phone is clueless.

For one thing, it means never using "the cloud" for my data, and for
another it means never installing apps which require a login/password when
they don't need a login/password, but it also means extending the safety of
my data to keeping private data in their own locations, in encrypted file
containers, and in securing passwords on the phone in Keepass2Android.

Most people have no clue the contacts (by default) are stored in a contacts
sqlite database on Android - where mine is always kept completely empty.

This is what I mean by people who don't know how to use phones, lock them.

It's a thousand more things, Arno - all of which is why I can safely make
the observation that people who lock their phones don't know technology.

They live in abject fear of everyone around them - which - is kind of sad.

>> 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 do not disagree that SMS texting can get you in trouble.
Ask Tom Brady about that. :)

(Although he apparently deleted his texts successfully, as far as I know.)

>> 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.

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.

See above where "safeguarding" means not establishing those login/passwords
for things that don't need to have a login/password on an Internet server.

>>> "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.
>
> 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.

That's the problem Carlos had with his comprehension of technology.
The difference in terms of privacy is huge - where I think the reason you
don't understand how SMS differs from establishing a login/password on an
Internet server is you equate SMS connection to the carrier to establishing
a login/password on an Internet server.

They're not the same.

>> 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.

Yeah. I know. I tried that. I don't like it. Although I tried it long ago
when it first came out. I prefer encrypted file containers.

Remember my analogy. You don't need to lock every window and door in the
house and lock the chimney and lock the basement cellar door, etc.

All you need to do is put your valuable jewelry in a locked safe.
It's the same with Android.

I feel sad for people who are so afraid of their wife & children that they
feel they must lock their phone up so that nobody will steal their data.

>> 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.

The point is that I feel sorry for people who lock their phone because it
means either they are afraid of every person around them, or they don't
have a clue how a phone works (and probably, it's both of those things).

BTW, I'm quite well aware why MARKETING wants all your data unlocked when
you unlock your phone - as MARKETING is what leads the sheep to slaughter.

Andrew, 2024-07-21 15:49:

> 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.

What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?

[...]>> If you don't have any data at all on the phone - yes, then it it
safe
>> without any kind of lock.
>
> 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!

[...]
>> 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.

Which is not the case for many messaging apps.

[...]
>> 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.

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
https://arnowelzel.de