Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 :

>> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
>> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
>
> What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?

I said privacy. You said security.
The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing.

>> 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.

ah... um... er... huh? I maintain encrypted containers on the device.
I used to use TrueCrypt but moved to VeraCrypt when everyone else did.

The encrypted container is stored on the device itself.
It's just a file on the device.

>> 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!

Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of
lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone.

I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone.
Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.

>
>> They live in abject fear, quivering & shaking that their data is insecure.
>
> Bullshit!

I'm making a point by being dramatic that it's a sad thing that people have
to feel that they have to lock their phone to keep it away from their own
wife and kids and friends and neighbors.

I think people who lock their phones either live in slums and therefore
they need to put bars all over their phone - or they don't know how to use
phones.

There's no reason to lock your phone if you know how a phone works.

>> 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.

But which is the case for default messaging apps (on Android).

>> 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.

Huh? Maybe you need to look it up before you make that claim.
Normally you're a smart guy so I hope you can back up that claim.
There's ALWAYS a default contacts sqlite database.
It's in different default locations depending on the OEM.
But it's there somewhere.

For example, there are tools to access that default sqlite db.
<https://github.com/alejandrolopezparra/AndroidContactsDatabase-tools>

If you deny that claim, then I'd be glad to learn from you.

Where do YOU think your contacts are stored, by default?
And where do you think SMS messages are stored, by default?

>> 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".

Of course. However, they're just contacts. And, the main point is they're
NEVER uploaded to someone else's servers (which you can't say for sure for
the default sqlite contacts database which every nefarious apps wants).

However.... to your point... you could lock your contacts app if you
actually cared about that level of securing your contacts (which you might
do if you lived in the slums or if you lived in abject fear of your wife).

>> 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"!

True. This is a conversation so not every sentence has been vetted by my
publicist and lawyer. The point is that if you put the contacts in the
default sqlite location, then you can rest assured that every nefarious app
knows where that is and if they want to, they grab it (e.g., GMail).

Again (and again) it's my belief that people who store their contacts in
the default sqlite database don't know how to use phones with privacy in
mind.
>> 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.

The reason I'm forced to use WhatsApp (without contacts, by the way), is
that I have great grandchildren whose parents send videos via Apple
Messages, but which are destroyed by the default gateway to Android
messaging.

Also, I have relatives in Munchen who, the young ones, are using WhatsApp
almost exclusively, and the older ones I need Google Voice to reach.

So I am forced to maintain:
a. Google Voice (to call POTS lines overseas at a low cost)
b. WhatsApp (to get clear videos & to reach the younger crowd overseas)
c. PulseSMS (to text people in the USA)

It's sad I have to do that. And I know how to use a phone. :)

>>> 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!

While I fully agree that SMS messages are "personal data", I'm more worried
about someone vacuuming up my metadata to use for nefarious purposes.

> And about my knowledge: I am a software developer who also maintains
> Android apps:
>
> <https://github.com/arnowelzel/>

I respect that you are a developer. I published tutorials on this newsgroup
for using Android Studio but I've never written an app from scratch myself.

I wrote in IBM Assembly Language on the IBM 360 in the seventies, and in
the eighties I wire wrapped my own Motorola 68701 micro controllers and in
the nineties I bootstrapped PDP 11 university machines, graduating to the
DEC VAX/VMS and then SunOS/Solaris machines well before Linux was a thing.

My first language was Fortran before Fortran 77 even existed, and then I
took PL/1 before C existed and I took COBOL (which is a crazy language).

After COBOL, I gave up on programming. I was burned out. They all do the
same thing with different syntax. :)

I respect your acumen.

Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26:

> Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 :
>
>>> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
>>> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
>>
>> What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?
>
> I said privacy. You said security.
> The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing.

What "privacy flaw" are you talking about?

[...]
>> Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data
>> partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security
>> concept!
>
> Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of
> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone.
>
> I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone.
> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.

I give up - you don't get it.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2024-07-26 08:23, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26:
>
>> Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:46:36 +0200 :
>>
>>>> Philosophy can & should be different among intelligent knowledgeable
>>>> people, where I *never* use MFA/2FA/2SV because of the privacy flaws.
>>>
>>> What security flaw is known for TOTP? Can you be more specific?
>>
>> I said privacy. You said security.
>> The privacy flaw in MFA/2FA/2SV is obvious. It's that second thing.
>
> What "privacy flaw" are you talking about?
>
> [...]
>>> Newer Android devices encrypt *all* data stored on them. The whole data
>>> partition is encrypted. And the lock mechanism is part of the security
>>> concept!
>>
>> Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of
>> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone.
>>
>> I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone.
>> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.
>
> I give up - you don't get it.

It's hilarious.

He talks about people who lock their phones living in "slums"...

....but those who lock the data ON their phones are perfectly normal!

LOL

Alan, 2024-07-26 17:34:

> On 2024-07-26 08:23, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Andrew, 2024-07-23 19:26:
[...]
>>> Here's where philosophy rules the design since that requires some kind of
>>> lock on the phone, does it not? Remember, I don't put a lock on the phone.
>>>
>>> I think people who put locks on their phone don't know how to use a phone.
>>> Or, they live in slums. And they fear every person around them. It's sad.
>>
>> I give up - you don't get it.
>
> It's hilarious.
>
> He talks about people who lock their phones living in "slums"...
>
> ...but those who lock the data ON their phones are perfectly normal!
>
> LOL

Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :

> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.

You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.

HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
many times you unlock your encrypted containers?

Think about that.

It's a hundred to one. Maybe five hundred to a thousand to one.

The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.

Me?

I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.

If you don't understand the concept by now, you never will.
So we may as well give up.

You'll never convince me that unlocking a phone a thousand times is more
efficient than unlocking it once - when you need your data unlocked.

And I'm never going to convince you that NOT unlocking your phone a
thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need to.

If you don't get it by now, you never will. And that's OK.
Some people enjoy being inefficient. It makes them feel better.

Andrew, 2024-07-27 05:21:

> Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
>
>> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
>> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
>> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
>> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
>
> You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
>
> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
>
> Think about that.

That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
access information on it.

And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.

> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>
> Me?
>
> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.

I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
only once a week would make no sense at all to me.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2024-07-26 20:21, Andrew wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
>
>> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
>> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
>> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
>> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
>
> You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
>
> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?

I unlock my phone instantly every time I pick it up.

>
> Think about that.
>
> It's a hundred to one. Maybe five hundred to a thousand to one.
>
> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>
> Me?
>
> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.

So your encrypted data can't be very important to your life.

>
> If you don't understand the concept by now, you never will.
> So we may as well give up.
>
> You'll never convince me that unlocking a phone a thousand times is more
> efficient than unlocking it once - when you need your data unlocked.
>
> And I'm never going to convince you that NOT unlocking your phone a
> thousand times is more efficient than unlocking it once - when you need to.
>
> If you don't get it by now, you never will. And that's OK.
> Some people enjoy being inefficient. It makes them feel better.

On 2024-07-27 05:53, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Andrew, 2024-07-27 05:21:
>
>> Arno Welzel wrote on Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0200 :
>>
>>> Yes - and especially when considering that an encrypted container also
>>> requires some kind of password or key to be useful. If the encryption
>>> would happen automatically without and interaction, the data would be
>>> completely unprotected if some other person gets access to the phone.
>>
>> You don't get it, and that's OK because efficiency isn't your thing.
>>
>> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
>> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
>>
>> Think about that.
>
> That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
> access information on it.
>
> And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
> this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
>
>> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
>> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>>
>> Me?
>>
>> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
>
> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
> because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
> on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
> only once a week would make no sense at all to me.
>
>

Exactly.

Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:53:02 +0200 :

>> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
>> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
>>
>> Think about that.
>
> That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
> access information on it.
>
> And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
> this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
>> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
>> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>>
>> Me?
>>
>> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
>
> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
> because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
> on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
> only once a week would make no sense at all to me.

Hi Arno,
Let's give up as you're not stupid but you're not getting the point about
unlocking a phone 1000 times versus only unlocking that same phone once.

I get it you use file system encryption, and I get it that you consider the
entire phone to be private data - so for you, unlocking it 1000 times is a
worthwhile tradeoff to my unlocking of my phone only once for your
thousand.

Let's just leave it at that, as people can disagree on philosophy as long
as they don't disagree on the facts.

For every thousand times you unlock your phone, I unlock mine once.
I consider my method efficient and your method inefficient.
You consider my method inefficient and your method efficient.

And that's OK.
As long as we agree on the facts, that's all that matters.

On 2024-07-27 12:12, Andrew wrote:
> Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:53:02 +0200 :
>
>>> HINT: How many times do you unlock your phone just to use it, versus how
>>> many times you unlock your encrypted containers?
>>>
>>> Think about that.
>>
>> That's irrelevant since you have to unlock any container *ALWAYS* to
>> access information on it.
>>
>> And I unlock my phone *ONLY* to access private information on it, since
>> this is the sole purpose for it - to store private information.
>>> The fact efficiency isn't in your thought process is why you think
>>> unlocking your phone a thousand times a day is something you enjoy.
>>>
>>> Me?
>>>
>>> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is once a week, if that.
>>
>> I unlock when I need to unlock. Which is every time when I use my phone,
>> because on my phone there is no "public" information at all! EVERY data
>> on that is private! Having an encrypted container which I would access
>> only once a week would make no sense at all to me.
>
> Hi Arno,
> Let's give up as you're not stupid but you're not getting the point about
> unlocking a phone 1000 times versus only unlocking that same phone once.

You're doing what you always do: focusing on something that is in
reality trivial and making it the hill you want to die on.

Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...

....if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?

On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>
> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>
> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?

If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
half the time) I'd be willing to do that. NOT if I have to do it every
time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.

--
Cheers, Bev
All bleeding eventually stops.

On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>
>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>
>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>
> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
> half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to do it every
> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
>

If it unlocks before you can even do anything?

My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.

On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>
>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>
>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
>> half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to do it every
>> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
>
> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?

It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
around that.

> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.

After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
trust the phone's. I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
with the switch AND the thumb-reader? No.

--
Cheers, Bev
Horn broken. Watch for finger.

On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>
>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>
>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to do
>>> it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after
>>> 2 minutes.
>>
>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>
> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
> around that.

I'm sorry, but I want to understand:

Pushing a button...

....is "annoying"?

>
>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>
> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
> trust the phone's.  I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
> with the switch AND the thumb-reader?  No.

You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...

The Real Bev wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>
>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>
>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>
> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning about
> half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to do it every
> time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after 2 minutes.
Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
Set your phone to remain unlocked so long as it can see that device.

<https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6093922>

On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>>
>>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to do
>>>> it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do after
>>>> 2 minutes.
>>>
>>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>>
>> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any way
>> around that.
>
> I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
>
> Pushing a button...
>
> ...is "annoying"?

My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the little
plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer reaches the
switch. I can only assume wear. I don't want to replace my phone
because of something stupid like that. I can take the tablet apart, but
the phone needs to be glued. No.

>>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>>
>> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
>> trust the phone's.  I suddenly want to take a picture and have to fumble
>> with the switch AND the thumb-reader?  No.
>
> You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...

Rotate phone.
Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the case..
[tap/touch finger-sensor]
Re-position the camera.
Tap the circle.
Butterfly gone.

Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
good musicians. Also causes problems with object manipulation.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo

On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
> little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer
> reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.

One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
So no need to use its switch in everyday use.

> I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
> that.

My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.

This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
with your switch paranoia... ;)

Andy Burns wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:42:39 +0100 :

> Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
> Set your phone to remain unlocked so long as it can see that device.
> <https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6093922>

With respect to bluetooth...

Thanks for that pointer as what's interesting is my bluetooth is off unless
I need it, which means it's in only one of three situations in daily life:
a. If I'm home, the bluetooth is off
b. If I'm driving, it's often on (especially if I'm routing)
c. Once I exit the vehicle, I instantly turn bluetooth off

I suspect (but haven't investigated) that many stores can use your
bluetooth to track your movements inside a store, so generally I set
airplane mode on in the specific situation of entering a building.

On 29/07/2024 12:40, Andrew wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote on Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:42:39 +0100 :
>
>> Do you have a bluetooth device that never leaves the building?
>> Set your phone to remain unlocked so long as it can see that device.
>> <https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6093922>
>
> With respect to bluetooth...
>
> Thanks for that pointer as what's interesting is my bluetooth is off unless
> I need it

If your wifi is on, you can use it for a geo-fenced version of remaining
unlocked

On 7/28/24 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
>> little plastic actuator that actually pushes the switch no longer
>> reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
>
> One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
> So no need to use its switch in everyday use.

That means leaving it on when I'm not using it, which I don't like to do
-- especially since I use it only once in a couple of months.

>> I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
>> that.
>
> My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
> screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.
>
> This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
> device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
> with your switch paranoia... ;)

I chose the Pixel2 because of the camera quality (and the price, of
course), which is what I mostly use it for. Nonetheless, I will take
your counsel under advisement.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down
alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for
new vocabulary." --James D. Nicoll

On 7/29/2024 7:07 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 7/28/24 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
>> On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
>>> little plastic actuator that actually pushes the switch no longer
>>> reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
>>
>> One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
>> So no need to use its switch in everyday use.
>
> That means leaving it on when I'm not using it, which I don't like to do
> -- especially since I use it only once in a couple of months.

If your switch broke while only using the tablet once every couple of
months it was likely a manufacturing defect. Probably won't happen
again. FWIW I've had several Lenovo tablets (both Android and Chrome)
over the years and nary a problem.

>>> I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
>>> that.
>>
>> My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
>> screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.
>>
>> This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
>> device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
>> with your switch paranoia... ;)
>
> I chose the Pixel2 because of the camera quality (and the price, of
> course), which is what I mostly use it for. Nonetheless, I will take
> your counsel under advisement.

This video on the Pixel 2 shows the fingerprint sensor waking/sleeping
the phone just like my Galaxy S10+ does with the double screen tap. So
you apparently do have the capability of not having to use the switch.

My Galaxy S10+ also has this capability of waking/sleeping using a
fingerprint. But mine works poorly and I find the double tap + pin
actually quicker (and much less frustrating). Perhaps your fingerprint
lock is frustrating as well?

<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_2-8733.php>

On 7/29/24 8:48 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 7/29/2024 7:07 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/28/24 10:01 PM, AJL wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2024 7:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
>>>> little plastic actuator that actually pushes the switch no longer
>>>> reaches the switch. I can only assume wear.
>>>
>>> One of my earlier Android tablets woke up when it was picked up (moved).
>>> So no need to use its switch in everyday use.
>>
>> That means leaving it on when I'm not using it, which I don't like to do
>> -- especially since I use it only once in a couple of months.
>
> If your switch broke while only using the tablet once every couple of
> months it was likely a manufacturing defect. Probably won't happen
> again. FWIW I've had several Lenovo tablets (both Android and Chrome)
> over the years and nary a problem.

That does seem likely, but 'wear' seems like a reasonable mechanism. It
worked for over a year and then started not working occasionally and
ended up not working at all. I added a thin plastic shim which made it
work a few more times. I just don't feel like taking it apart again to
see what happened. I can easily push the actual switch when the back is
off, and "too short" really seems like the problem -- and it seems kind
of irrational that this tiny plastic part could be made of cheesier
plastic than the rest of the device.

>>>> I don't want to replace my phone because of something stupid like
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> My current Android phone (Galaxy S10+) wakes up with a double tap to the
>>> screen. Again no need to use (and wear out?) the switch.
>>>
>>> This of course won't help you currently, but I suggest for your future
>>> device purchases that you get one with this capability. It should help
>>> with your switch paranoia... ;)
>>
>> I chose the Pixel2 because of the camera quality (and the price, of
>> course), which is what I mostly use it for. Nonetheless, I will take
>> your counsel under advisement.
>
> This video on the Pixel 2 shows the fingerprint sensor waking/sleeping
> the phone just like my Galaxy S10+ does with the double screen tap. So
> you apparently do have the capability of not having to use the switch.

Possibly, but I really don't want to trust something where failure
causes total inoperability when I don't have to.

Shit happens a lot more frequently than it ought to.

Case in point: I bought a data SIM for the Pixel and was setting up
google voice to work with it. As I held the phone to my ear it let out
a loud shriek that bothered someone sitting across the room from me. I
immediately lost roughly half the hearing in that ear and it hasn't come
back nearly a year later. When they tell you not to listen to loud
music they're giving you good advice -- but nobody ever said that a
single blast would do permanent damage. I didn't think it was possible
for the phone to make that loud a noise -- music is pitiful and phone
conversations in 'speaker' mode are just adequate.

Shit happens.

> My Galaxy S10+ also has this capability of waking/sleeping using a
> fingerprint. But mine works poorly and I find the double tap + pin
> actually quicker (and much less frustrating). Perhaps your fingerprint
> lock is frustrating as well?

Unwilling to even test it!

> <https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_2-8733.php>

I like gsmarena. I wish there were more sites like that for different
electronic products which are essentially black boxes. Trying to chose
a fitness/smartwatch is an exercise in pain.

--
Cheers, Bev
"No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."
--Lily Tomlin

On 2024-07-28 19:34, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to
>>>>> do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do
>>>>> after 2 minutes.
>>>>
>>>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>>>
>>> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any
>>> way around that.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
>>
>> Pushing a button...
>>
>> ...is "annoying"?
>
> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the little
> plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer reaches the
> switch.  I can only assume wear.  I don't want to replace my phone
> because of something stupid like that.  I can take the tablet apart, but
> the phone needs to be glued.  No.
>
>>>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>>>
>>> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
>>> trust the phone's.  I suddenly want to take a picture and have to
>>> fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader?  No.
>>
>> You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
>
> Rotate phone.
> Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the case..
> [tap/touch finger-sensor]
> Re-position the camera.
> Tap the circle.
> Butterfly gone.
>
> Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
> good musicians.  Also causes problems with object manipulation.
>

So your argument is that unlocking a phone with a home button is bad...

....because yours happens to be broken?

On 7/29/24 1:12 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-28 19:34, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to
>>>>>> do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do
>>>>>> after 2 minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>>>>
>>>> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see any
>>>> way around that.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
>>>
>>> Pushing a button...
>>>
>>> ...is "annoying"?
>>
>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the little
>> plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer reaches the
>> switch.  I can only assume wear.  I don't want to replace my phone
>> because of something stupid like that.  I can take the tablet apart, but
>> the phone needs to be glued.  No.
>>
>>>>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>>>>
>>>> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about to
>>>> trust the phone's.  I suddenly want to take a picture and have to
>>>> fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader?  No.
>>>
>>> You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
>>
>> Rotate phone.
>> Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the case..
>> [tap/touch finger-sensor]
>> Re-position the camera.
>> Tap the circle.
>> Butterfly gone.
>>
>> Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
>> good musicians.  Also causes problems with object manipulation.

>
> So your argument is that unlocking a phone with a home button is bad...

What is a home button? Do you mean power button?

> ...because yours happens to be broken?

Not broken; I don't like subjecting things to unnecessary wear and I'm
clumsy. I'd also like the tiny fonts used by so many apps to be larger
-- WTF are they saving that whitespace for?

We all need more config options, not fewer.

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Friends help you move. *Real* friends help you move bodies."
--A. Walker

On 2024-07-29 21:26, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 7/29/24 1:12 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-07-28 19:34, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 7/27/24 10:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-27 20:33, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/24 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-27 18:46, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/24 12:51 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who cares how many times a day I unlock my phone...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...if it doesn't inconvenience me at all to do so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I only needed to unlock it when I turned it on (in the morning
>>>>>>> about half the time) I'd be willing to do that.  NOT if I have to
>>>>>>> do it every time the screen goes blank, which I have it set to do
>>>>>>> after 2 minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it unlocks before you can even do anything?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's annoying enough to have to push the button, but I don't see
>>>>> any way around that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but I want to understand:
>>>>
>>>> Pushing a button...
>>>>
>>>> ...is "annoying"?
>>>
>>> My Lenovo tablet, otherwise in fine shape, is useless because the
>>> little plastic actuaor that actually pushes the switch no longer
>>> reaches the switch.  I can only assume wear.  I don't want to replace
>>> my phone because of something stupid like that.  I can take the
>>> tablet apart, but the phone needs to be glued.  No.
>>>
>>>>>> My phone unlocks with my thumbprint by the time I can see the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>> After my experience with the thumb-reader at the gym I'm not about
>>>>> to trust the phone's.  I suddenly want to take a picture and have
>>>>> to fumble with the switch AND the thumb-reader?  No.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to "fumble" with anything to take a picture, so...
>>>
>>> Rotate phone.
>>> Half-push the power button with thumb because of the oddness of the
>>> case..
>>> [tap/touch finger-sensor]
>>> Re-position the camera.
>>> Tap the circle.
>>> Butterfly gone.
>>>
>>> Small-muscle clumsiness is the reason that some of us would never be
>>> good musicians.  Also causes problems with object manipulation.
>
>>
>> So your argument is that unlocking a phone with a home button is bad...
>
> What is a home button?  Do you mean power button?

Nope. I mean a home button.

It's on the bottom of some iPhones.

>
>> ...because yours happens to be broken?
>
> Not broken;  I don't like subjecting things to unnecessary wear and I'm
> clumsy.  I'd also like the tiny fonts used by so many apps to be larger
> -- WTF are they saving that whitespace for?
>
> We all need more config options, not fewer.

You're deflecting now.