"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:11:02 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>
>> Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to
>> communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?
>
> Come again? I would have to set that up on my end (how?), but also at
> their end, right?

We're talking about the future. I expect Whatsapp will provide some kind
of API. If Signal decides to interoperate, which is a big if, then I
imagine it would be possible to send a message from signal to
<phonenumber>@whatsapp or something like that. I don't know why this
would be worse than sending an SMS, as SMS is typically received by
Google Messages, and then who knows what happens to the meta data, or
the message.

On 14.09.24 17:43, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for
>> you to use WA?
>
> Wat de boer niet kent, dat eet hij niet.

Das ist ein deutsches Sprichwort.

> (What the uneducated person doesn't know, he won't eat.)

I do not need a translation.

> They're just afraid of the unknown... and lazy. My mother is alsmost 74.
> She's got an iPhone with WA /and/ Signal.

And iMsg. Already three.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote:
> If Signal decides to interoperate,

What I really doubt.
They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using
Signal and not WA.

For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it
would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the
"original"?

In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
promoting it.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 14.09.24 20:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-14 17:43, s|b wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>
>>> BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
>>> and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
>>> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
>>
>> Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
>> but still they won't install it.
>
> I have them all installed (except Threema), but nobody in my circle uses
> anything except whatsapp. And some SMS from businesses.

I gave up WA many years ago on my iPhone and I'm not missing anything
and I can easily communicate with everybody having a smartphone.

And it has a reason why someone is using Signal and not WA.

For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg
interoperability would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them
instead of the "original"?

In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
promoting it.

WA is rather for housewives and adolescent people.

*SCNR*

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 14.09.24 17:48, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:26:56 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>
>> What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE.
>
> Sure they do. <eyes to the ceiling>

They do. Nobody said you have to use them if you do not trust them.
Besides Threema and Apple it is the only service I trust.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 2024-09-19 11:36, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 14.09.24 20:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-09-14 17:43, s|b wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
>>>> and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
>>>> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
>>>
>>> Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
>>> but still they won't install it.
>>
>> I have them all installed (except Threema), but nobody in my circle uses
>> anything except whatsapp. And some SMS from businesses.
>
> I gave up WA many years ago on my iPhone and I'm not missing anything
> and I can easily communicate with everybody having a smartphone.
>
> And it has a reason why someone is using Signal and not WA.

You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-09-19 11:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote:
>> If Signal decides to interoperate,
>
> What I really doubt.
> They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using
> Signal and not WA.
>
> For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it
> would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the
> "original"?
>
> In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
> promoting it.

Good!

They are also going to mandate Apple to open up their software to other
hardware competitors, under fine of 10% world earnings.

I love this government! :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.

Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...

Am 19.09.24 um 21:35 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2024-09-19 11:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote:
>>> If Signal decides to interoperate,
>>
>> What I really doubt.
>> They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using
>> Signal and not WA.
>>
>> For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it
>> would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the
>> "original"?
>>
>> In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
>> promoting it.
>
> Good!
>
> They are also going to mandate Apple to open up their software to other
> hardware competitors, under fine of 10% world earnings.

How trollish you are all the time! Can be seen how brainless you defend
this proprietary non standardised private crap called WhatsApp. *LOL*

> I love this government! :-P

It is yours not mine.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2024-09-19 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>
> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...

It is not obligatory here either, it is just the de-facto standard
because it is so popular.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>
> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...

It isn't anywhere.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>
>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>
> It isn't anywhere.

LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 20.09.24 20:25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>
>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>
>> It isn't anywhere.
>
> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
> has it. Even banks assume you have it.

That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.

I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.

Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
money with WhatsApp.

EOD.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 20.09.24 20:25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>>
>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>>
>>> It isn't anywhere.
>>
>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
>
> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.

LOL!

>
> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
>
> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
> money with WhatsApp.

LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.

>
> EOD.
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
>
> LOL!
>
>>
>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
>>
>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
>> money with WhatsApp.
>
> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>
>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>
>> It isn't anywhere.
>
> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
> has it. Even banks assume you have it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>>
>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>>
>>> It isn't anywhere.
>>
>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html

That's there, not here.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> > On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
> >> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> >> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
> >> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
> >> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
> >>
> >> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
> >> money with WhatsApp.
> >
> > LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html

Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.

The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*.
Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.

That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that
people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks

But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at
the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.

On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
>>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
>>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
>>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
>>>> money with WhatsApp.
>>>
>>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
>
> Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.
>
> The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
> were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*.
> Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.

Ah, good point. I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which
is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk
an illegality.

> That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that
> people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks
>
> But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at
> the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>>
>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>>
>>> It isn't anywhere.
>>
>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html

This is internal bank use of WhatsApp as well as iMessage and Signal for
business discussions. Which is against SEC regulations.

Nothing to do with customer interactions which businesses can choose
whatever form suits their customers. In Spain, it's commonly whatsapp.
Italy also has a strong culture of whatsapp.

Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
>>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
>>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
>>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
>>>>
>>>> It isn't anywhere.
>>>
>>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
>>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
>
> That's there, not here.

There is here:

https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en

In Europe the same rules apply.
BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for
business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious
reasons. Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the
banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and
accepted documentation of client communication.

You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern
business at all.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
>>>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
>>>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
>>>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
>>>>> money with WhatsApp.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
>>
>> Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.
>>
>> The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
>> were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*.
>> Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.
>
> Ah, good point.

It's also not specific to whatsapp. They also using imessage and signal.
The NYT is paywalled for me. This site you can read more details.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/banks-hit-549-million-fines-use-signal-whatsapp-evade-regulators-rcna98790

> I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which
> is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk
> an illegality.

Not disagreeing with you, but big banks are often caught doing illegal
acts.

If Signal doesn't want to interoperate, I bet someone else will. If
Delta Chat decided to do it for example, then there would be an
interface between Whatsapp and email. And there is no overhead of having
to set up a chat server.

And if Delta Chat doesn't want to do it, as it is open source, someone
could fork it.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> >>> On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>>> That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
> >>>> Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
> >>>
> >>> LOL!
> >>>
> >>>> I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
> >>>> because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best
> >>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
> >>>> money with WhatsApp.
> >>>
> >>> LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
> >>
> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
> >
> > Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.
> >
> > The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
> > were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*.
> > Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.
>
> Ah, good point. I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which
> is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk
> an illegality.

Jörg has been repeatedly spreading these lies and they have been
debunked many times, but he just continues. Boggles the mind.

And - as others have mentioned and Jörg now also admits - other IM
systems - such as Signal, iMessage et al - (and any other non-certified
means of electronic communication for that matter) have the same
problems, so singleling out WhatsApp says everything about Jörg's agenda
and nothing about WhatsApp.

> > That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that
> > people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks
> >
> > But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at
> > the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> > On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >> Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> >>> On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>>> On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> >>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
> >>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
> >>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
> >>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
> >>>>
> >>>> It isn't anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
> >>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
> >>
> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
> >
> > That's there, not here.
>
> There is here:
>
> https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en
>
> In Europe the same rules apply.
> BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for
> business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious
> reasons.

You keep claiming that. You keep failing to provide proof of such a
prohibition and we keep giving counter examples of WhatsApp *being* used
for "business purposes".

> Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the
> banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and
> accepted documentation of client communication.

Nope, it's not impossible. It may be that some institutions have
chosen not to *implement* such archival of client communication, but
that's their *choice*, not a technical - or other - impossibility.

> You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern
> business at all.

Please choose which logical fallacy best fits your 'argument': Straw
man? Red herring? Other?