Any views about backing up an Android phone? When I used Windows, I
regularly backed that up with Acronis or EaseUS Todo to an external
drive. Now I'm using Linux, I backup data ("Backups") to external USB
sticks and OS (Timeshift - not strictly a backup) to the internal HD.
Backing up to an external drive has always been very straightforward,
but Android seems less accommodating.
I should say that I have very little need to backup my phone, as I don't
use it for anything important. If I take any photos I want to keep, I'll
copy them to my laptop within a day. I also never use Cloud storage.
My Xiaomi phone has a built-in backup app, but of course that seems to require a Xiaomi account with backup to Xiaomi cloud storage. However, a little more digging into "Settings" reveals it can store in The Cloud,
or locally - either as "Mobile Device - Back up and restore items on
this device", or "Computer - Back up and restore it". However, the
"Mobile Device" backup says "This feature allows you to backup and
restore items using your mobile device and computer. This feature needs
to connect to the internet and requires the following mandatory
permissions to work:" There follows a list with accessing contacts and
call history for backing up, and editing contacts and call history to restore, accessing storage for backing up files, and saving items to
storage for restoring items (what these items are it doesn't specify.
Are they files?). Finally it needs to access messages to back them up
(but there's nothing about restoring them). Why does it have to do this through the internet, though? I have to agree to this before progressing
to the next info page, but haven't done so, so don't know exactly how
the computer is involved.
Looking at other backup apps on Play Store or F-Droid shows how confused
the picture is. Some backup specifics like apps, contacts, SMS/MMS
messages, or photos, while others do several. Some state they can't
backup data as root access is required. Some say they can backup to an internal card, and only then copy from that card to an external store.
Why is backing up in Android apparently so complicated? Why can't I do
as simply as I would with Windows or Linux via USB (or Wi-Fi)? And I
haven't even looked at the issue of whether or not it is straightforward
to restore from a backup.
I have a feeling, however, that you're a Windows-conditioned-man, and
are used to independent imaging and cloning software.
If so, I'm on your side. But I don't know where to get it.
adb pull /system/etc/hosts .\hosts.txtThat should copy the hosts file over even if you're unrooted.
Any views about backing up an Android phone?
When I used Windows, I
regularly backed that up with Acronis or EaseUS Todo to an external
drive. Now I'm using Linux, I backup data ("Backups") to external USB
sticks and OS (Timeshift - not strictly a backup) to the internal HD.
Backing up to an external drive has always been very straightforward,
but Android seems less accommodating.
I should say that I have very little need to backup my phone, as I don't
use it for anything important. If I take any photos I want to keep, I'll
copy them to my laptop within a day. I also never use Cloud storage.
My Xiaomi phone has a built-in backup app, but of course that seems to require a Xiaomi account with backup to Xiaomi cloud storage.
However, a
little more digging into "Settings" reveals it can store in The Cloud,
or locally - either as "Mobile Device - Back up and restore items on
this device", or "Computer - Back up and restore it". However, the
"Mobile Device" backup says "This feature allows you to backup and
restore items using your mobile device and computer. This feature needs
to connect to the internet and requires the following mandatory
permissions to work:" There follows a list with accessing contacts and
call history for backing up, and editing contacts and call history to restore, accessing storage for backing up files, and saving items to
storage for restoring items (what these items are it doesn't specify.
Are they files?). Finally it needs to access messages to back them up
(but there's nothing about restoring them). Why does it have to do this through the internet, though? I have to agree to this before progressing
to the next info page, but haven't done so, so don't know exactly how
the computer is involved.
Looking at other backup apps on Play Store or F-Droid shows how confused
the picture is. Some backup specifics like apps, contacts, SMS/MMS
messages, or photos, while others do several. Some state they can't
backup data as root access is required. Some say they can backup to an internal card, and only then copy from that card to an external store.
Why is backing up in Android apparently so complicated?
Why can't I do
as simply as I would with Windows or Linux via USB (or Wi-Fi)? And I
haven't even looked at the issue of whether or not it is straightforward
to restore from a backup.
Any views about backing up an Android phone? When I used Windows, I
regularly backed that up with Acronis or EaseUS Todo to an external
drive. Now I'm using Linux, I backup data ("Backups") to external USB
sticks and OS (Timeshift - not strictly a backup) to the internal HD.
Backing up to an external drive has always been very straightforward,
but Android seems less accommodating.
I should say that I have very little need to backup my phone, as I don't
use it for anything important. If I take any photos I want to keep, I'll
copy them to my laptop within a day. I also never use Cloud storage.
My Xiaomi phone has a built-in backup app, but of course that seems to require a Xiaomi account with backup to Xiaomi cloud storage. However, a little more digging into "Settings" reveals it can store in The Cloud,
or locally - either as "Mobile Device - Back up and restore items on
this device", or "Computer - Back up and restore it". However, the
"Mobile Device" backup says "This feature allows you to backup and
restore items using your mobile device and computer. This feature needs
to connect to the internet and requires the following mandatory
permissions to work:" There follows a list with accessing contacts and
call history for backing up, and editing contacts and call history to restore, accessing storage for backing up files, and saving items to
storage for restoring items (what these items are it doesn't specify.
Are they files?). Finally it needs to access messages to back them up
(but there's nothing about restoring them). Why does it have to do this through the internet, though? I have to agree to this before progressing
to the next info page, but haven't done so, so don't know exactly how
the computer is involved.
Looking at other backup apps on Play Store or F-Droid shows how confused
the picture is. Some backup specifics like apps, contacts, SMS/MMS
messages, or photos, while others do several. Some state they can't
backup data as root access is required. Some say they can backup to an internal card, and only then copy from that card to an external store.
Why is backing up in Android apparently so complicated? Why can't I do
as simply as I would with Windows or Linux via USB (or Wi-Fi)? And I
haven't even looked at the issue of whether or not it is straightforward
to restore from a backup.
I also never use Cloud storage.
Am 02.11.23 um 21:23 schrieb Jeff Layman:
Any views about backing up an Android phone? When I used Windows, I
regularly backed that up with Acronis or EaseUS Todo to an external
drive. Now I'm using Linux, I backup data ("Backups") to external USB
sticks and OS (Timeshift - not strictly a backup) to the internal HD.
Backing up to an external drive has always been very straightforward,
but Android seems less accommodating.
I should say that I have very little need to backup my phone, as I don't
use it for anything important. If I take any photos I want to keep, I'll
copy them to my laptop within a day. I also never use Cloud storage.
My Xiaomi phone has a built-in backup app, but of course that seems to
require a Xiaomi account with backup to Xiaomi cloud storage. However, a
little more digging into "Settings" reveals it can store in The Cloud,
or locally - either as "Mobile Device - Back up and restore items on
this device", or "Computer - Back up and restore it". However, the
"Mobile Device" backup says "This feature allows you to backup and
restore items using your mobile device and computer. This feature needs
to connect to the internet and requires the following mandatory
permissions to work:" There follows a list with accessing contacts and
call history for backing up, and editing contacts and call history to
restore, accessing storage for backing up files, and saving items to
storage for restoring items (what these items are it doesn't specify.
Are they files?). Finally it needs to access messages to back them up
(but there's nothing about restoring them). Why does it have to do this
through the internet, though? I have to agree to this before progressing
to the next info page, but haven't done so, so don't know exactly how
the computer is involved.
Looking at other backup apps on Play Store or F-Droid shows how confused
the picture is. Some backup specifics like apps, contacts, SMS/MMS
messages, or photos, while others do several. Some state they can't
backup data as root access is required. Some say they can backup to an
internal card, and only then copy from that card to an external store.
Why is backing up in Android apparently so complicated? Why can't I do
as simply as I would with Windows or Linux via USB (or Wi-Fi)? And I
haven't even looked at the issue of whether or not it is straightforward
to restore from a backup.
Very very complicated. Drop your old habits and use Google Cloud.
On 03/11/2023 05:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Very very complicated. Drop your old habits and use Google Cloud.
Nope. Google has enough of my private info without me making it simple
for them. Do you really believe that Google doesn't scan all the info
you store on their Cloud servers? From a very recent article at <https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/google-drive-secure/#Google_Drive_privacy_issues>:
"Google has, over the years, perfected the art of surveillance capitalism—where your data is mined and sold to advertisers, which is
then used to manipulate or influence your buying behavior."
You might also find it interesting to read the section "Relinquishing control".
Looking at other backup apps on Play Store or F-Droid shows how confused
the picture is. Some backup specifics like apps, contacts, SMS/MMS
messages, or photos, while others do several. Some state they can't
backup data as root access is required. Some say they can backup to an internal card, and only then copy from that card to an external store.
Why is backing up in Android apparently so complicated? Why can't I do
as simply as I would with Windows or Linux via USB (or Wi-Fi)? And I
haven't even looked at the issue of whether or not it is straightforward
to restore from a backup.
The problem is that, on Windows, you can get access to all your user
files in C:\Users\username so you can backup all the user state. On
Android there are security protections in place so one app can't access >another app's files. On Windows, if you have admin rights, you can
access every file. On Android you need root for that, which is
something the system is designed to not let you have, for the same
security reasons.
If I plug my Android phone (or tablet) into my PC using a USB lead, I
can download data from it. That is generally how I copy off photos that
I want to use elsewhere. So if I can do that for photos, what is to
stop me downloading the rest of the data on the device onto a PC
Do you really believe that Google doesn't scan all the info you store
on their Cloud servers?
<https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/google-drive-secure/#Google_Drive_privacy_issues>:
"Google has, over the years, perfected the art of surveillance capitalism—where your data is mined and sold to advertisers, which
is then used to manipulate or influence your buying behavior."
You might also find it interesting to read the section
"Relinquishing control".
Adrian wrote:
If I plug my Android phone (or tablet) into my PC using a USB lead, I
can download data from it. That is generally how I copy off photos that
I want to use elsewhere. So if I can do that for photos, what is to
stop me downloading the rest of the data on the device onto a PC
Because what you see on the PC when connected by USB are only the
folders that the phone chooses to let you see, rather than the entire
file structure.
So if you don't have root, you have to rely on whatever backup
mechanisms the system lets you have. That might be:
3 adb backup (unreliable)[...]
So with a USB/MTP connection to a Windows system, you can 'backup'
more of the Android filesystem, but it is rather cumbersome to use,
because you can only use this connection in (Windows) File Explorer and
only domanual copy-paste type operations. It's not a Windows drive -
it has no drive letter -, so you can not use it with other utilities,
not with 'DOS' (hence not with a .bat script), etc..
Any views about backing up an Android phone?
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
So if you don't have root, you have to rely on whatever backup
mechanisms the system lets you have. That might be:
[...]
3 adb backup (unreliable)[...]
Why is adb backup unreliable?
I was thinking of using 'adb pull' commands in a .bat script.
AFAIK, 'adb pull' can see as much/little of the Android filesystem as
a USB/MTP connection can (see my response to Andy).
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
So if you don't have root, you have to rely on whatever backup[...]
mechanisms the system lets you have. That might be:
3 adb backup (unreliable)[...]
Why is adb backup unreliable?
I was thinking of using 'adb pull' commands in a .bat script.
AFAIK, 'adb pull' can see as much/little of the Android filesystem as
a USB/MTP connection can (see my response to Andy).
adb backup != adb pull
'adb backup' is supposed to back up your .apks and their associated data,
ie enough to restore the app onto a second device and have it configured
as it was on the first device. It often fails - I don't know exactly
why, but it seems like Google doesn't support it any more.
'adb pull' is just a file copy, so doesn't get apps or app data (but can
get files stored by apps, which is different from app data).
In message <YIy*n2tuz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
The problem is that, on Windows, you can get access to all your user
files in C:\Users\username so you can backup all the user state. On
Android there are security protections in place so one app can't access
another app's files. On Windows, if you have admin rights, you can
access every file. On Android you need root for that, which is
something the system is designed to not let you have, for the same
security reasons.
Am I missing something here ? If I plug my Android phone (or tablet)
into my PC using a USB lead, I can download data from it. That is
generally how I copy off photos that I want to use elsewhere. So if I
can do that for photos, what is to stop me downloading the rest of the
data on the device onto a PC, or in other words, backing it up ?
The first sentence might be correct in relation to Android usage,
although not using it for anything important is a sensible strategy. I
doubt, however, that it's a theory any more as to what Google is doing
with personal data.
Am 03.11.23 um 09:27 schrieb Jeff Layman:
On 03/11/2023 05:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Very very complicated. Drop your old habits and use Google Cloud.
Nope. Google has enough of my private info without me making it simple
for them. Do you really believe that Google doesn't scan all the info
you store on their Cloud servers? From a very recent article at
<https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/google-drive-secure/#Google_Drive_privacy_issues>:
Why in the first place did you buy an Android smartphone? Google has
your data anyway.
"Google has, over the years, perfected the art of surveillance
capitalism—where your data is mined and sold to advertisers, which is
then used to manipulate or influence your buying behavior."
You might also find it interesting to read the section "Relinquishing
control".
No. I use my Pixel sometimes but the really important things are done on
a different OS.
You are obviously lacking a coherent strategy. Conspiracy theories
really don't help at all.
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?".
On 04.11.23 09:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
The first sentence might be correct in relation to Android usage,
although not using it for anything important is a sensible strategy. I
doubt, however, that it's a theory any more as to what Google is doing
with personal data.
Perhaps you are right. It worries me to see how most users are naive.
Look at the neighbouring thread "RCS chat".
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? 😉
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
So if you don't have root, you have to rely on whatever backup
mechanisms the system lets you have. That might be:
[...]
3 adb backup (unreliable)[...]
Why is adb backup unreliable?
I was thinking of using 'adb pull' commands in a .bat script.
AFAIK, 'adb pull' can see as much/little of the Android filesystem as
a USB/MTP connection can (see my response to Andy).
adb backup != adb pull
'adb backup' is supposed to back up your .apks and their associated data,
ie enough to restore the app onto a second device and have it configured
as it was on the first device. It often fails - I don't know exactly
why, but it seems like Google doesn't support it any more.
'adb pull' is just a file copy, so doesn't get apps or app data (but can
get files stored by apps, which is different from app data).
On 2023-11-03 15:25, Adrian wrote:[...]
Am I missing something here ? If I plug my Android phone (or tablet)
into my PC using a USB lead, I can download data from it. That is generally how I copy off photos that I want to use elsewhere. So if I
can do that for photos, what is to stop me downloading the rest of the
data on the device onto a PC, or in other words, backing it up ?
Because it doesn't work.
One example I suffered some days ago.
My WhatsApp app stopped working,it would not even start after an update
while I was sleeping.
After a day, I decided to uninstall and reinstall it again, without
deleting any data.
On installation, the app ignored the messages database on the phone, and insisting on downloading the backup from Google Drive. But it was half a
week old, so I lost some messages.
What would be a file backup be on my computer? None. WhatsApp would
ignore it, refuse to use it. So it is no use...
It did reuse the photo and media files storage, that was not lost.
(then I reconfigured WhatsApp to do daily backup. No idea why it was
set to weekly).
Some apps will accept data backups restored into the phone, but other
apps will not. And you can not restore the apps themselves as files from
the computer. There is no way to simply copy everything and restore everything as you would do a computer, except if the phone provides a
rescue mode option from boot to do it (offline backup/restore)
On 04/11/2023 09:01, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 04.11.23 09:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
The first sentence might be correct in relation to Android usage,
although not using it for anything important is a sensible strategy. I
doubt, however, that it's a theory any more as to what Google is doing
with personal data.
Perhaps you are right. It worries me to see how most users are naive.
Look at the neighbouring thread "RCS chat".
Interesting thread. I've just read through it all (because most of my messaging is to iPhone users I didn't follow it for long when it first appeared).
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
On 2023-11-04 11:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 04/11/2023 09:01, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 04.11.23 09:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
The first sentence might be correct in relation to Android usage,
although not using it for anything important is a sensible strategy. I >>>> doubt, however, that it's a theory any more as to what Google is doing >>>> with personal data.
Perhaps you are right. It worries me to see how most users are naive.
Look at the neighbouring thread "RCS chat".
Interesting thread. I've just read through it all (because most of my
messaging is to iPhone users I didn't follow it for long when it first
appeared).
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Yes.
adb backup != adb pull
'adb backup' is supposed to back up your .apks and their associated data,
ie enough to restore the app onto a second device and have it configured
as it was on the first device. It often fails - I don't know exactly
why, but it seems like Google doesn't support it any more.
'adb pull' is just a file copy, so doesn't get apps or app data (but can
get files stored by apps, which is different from app data).
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes through Google.
Why in the first place did you buy an Android smartphone? Google has
your data anyway.
Sadly, you're probably right.
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's what
E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
However what's in RCS for Google is a competitor to iMessage. Especially in the US, Android suffers from 'green bubbles syndrome', where people buy iPhones because they get better messaging with their iPhone owning mates via iMessage, and Android owners have to fall back to SMS which is very much a second class citizen. RCS is Google's (umpteenth) attempt on an iMessage rival.
(In the US iMessage has a big chunk of market share, in other countries this isn't really a thing - everyone uses WhatsApp or Telegram or whatever so the blue bubbles/green bubbles difference doesn't matter).
If RCS succeeds, it address a key deficiency of Android compared with iOS
and helps them sell more Android phones.
Google is pushing the narrative that RCS is 'open' and iMessage is 'closed', but, with carriers throwing in the towel and using Google's server, it
sounds like it's not a million miles different from iMessage.
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity
for RCS.
Theo
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's what
E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
However what's in RCS for Google is a competitor to iMessage. Especially in the US, Android suffers from 'green bubbles syndrome', where people buy iPhones because they get better messaging with their iPhone owning mates via iMessage, and Android owners have to fall back to SMS which is very much a second class citizen. RCS is Google's (umpteenth) attempt on an iMessage rival.
(In the US iMessage has a big chunk of market share, in other countries this isn't really a thing - everyone uses WhatsApp or Telegram or whatever so the blue bubbles/green bubbles difference doesn't matter).
If RCS succeeds, it address a key deficiency of Android compared with iOS
and helps them sell more Android phones.
Google is pushing the narrative that RCS is 'open' and iMessage is 'closed', but, with carriers throwing in the towel and using Google's server, it
sounds like it's not a million miles different from iMessage.
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity
for RCS.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote
Why in the first place did you buy an Android smartphone? Google has
your data anyway.
Sadly, you're probably right.
If you think Joerg is right, then that's a sad assessment on your part.
Apple forces you to constantly log into its mothership tracking servers. Google can't.
Think about that before you assess that one may be safer than the other.
Have you read this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT
It says Apple holds onto your encryption key to read your iMessages while
on iCloud and to give all your iMessages on iCloud to anyone they want to?
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's what
E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
However what's in RCS for Google is a competitor to iMessage. Especially in the US, Android suffers from 'green bubbles syndrome', where people buy iPhones because they get better messaging with their iPhone owning mates via iMessage, and Android owners have to fall back to SMS which is very much a second class citizen. RCS is Google's (umpteenth) attempt on an iMessage rival.
(In the US iMessage has a big chunk of market share, in other countries this isn't really a thing - everyone uses WhatsApp or Telegram or whatever so the blue bubbles/green bubbles difference doesn't matter).
If RCS succeeds, it address a key deficiency of Android compared with iOS
and helps them sell more Android phones.
Google is pushing the narrative that RCS is 'open' and iMessage is 'closed', but, with carriers throwing in the towel and using Google's server, it
sounds like it's not a million miles different from iMessage.
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity
for RCS.
On 05/11/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of >>> data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? ;-)
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's what >> E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
I guess my use of man-in-the-middle was somewhat misleading as it has a specific meaning. Perhaps "backdoor" would have been a better choice.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption#Backdoors>
My point is that Google provide Android. It doesn't matter how open
source it is as nobody outside Google (and I would think many inside it)
can know what umpteen million lines of code do. I was referring mainly
to Google's own backup to their Cloud servers. It may also be the case
that other manufacturers using their modified Android OS can do the same thing. It may be unlikely, but how would anyone outside the company know
if there was a software backdoor in Android? Backdoors aren't unknown in hardware, either. This is from over 10 years ago: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/Silicon_scan_draft.pdf>
Perhaps not relevant so much to Google, but what about Huawei or Xiaomi?
However what's in RCS for Google is a competitor to iMessage.
Especially in
the US, Android suffers from 'green bubbles syndrome', where people buy
iPhones because they get better messaging with their iPhone owning
mates via
iMessage, and Android owners have to fall back to SMS which is very
much a
second class citizen. RCS is Google's (umpteenth) attempt on an iMessage >> rival.
(In the US iMessage has a big chunk of market share, in other
countries this
isn't really a thing - everyone uses WhatsApp or Telegram or whatever
so the
blue bubbles/green bubbles difference doesn't matter).
If RCS succeeds, it address a key deficiency of Android compared with iOS
and helps them sell more Android phones.
Google is pushing the narrative that RCS is 'open' and iMessage is
'closed',
but, with carriers throwing in the towel and using Google's server, it
sounds like it's not a million miles different from iMessage.
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity
for RCS.
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more
data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly
use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
of improving their services to me."
I guess my use of man-in-the-middle was somewhat misleading as it has a specific meaning. Perhaps "backdoor" would have been a better choice.
On 2023-11-05 16:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more
data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity
for RCS.
I can buy this analysis :-)
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of >>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly
use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
of improving their services to me."
The - snipped - issue was:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
by Gmail!
As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting
on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products
which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
isn't still stupid.)
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
I don't knowingly
use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
of improving their services to me."
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of >>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly
use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
of improving their services to me."
The - snipped - issue was:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
by Gmail!
As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting
on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products
which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
isn't still stupid.)
On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
And we are talking RCS, not email. Different technology.
I don't knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any
of the T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to
find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
Why would I be surprised? The first time I asked Google to have one
gmail address, which at the time was by invitation, I read the
conditions. And they clearly said that email could be read by machines,
not humans, for the purpose of publicity targeting and improving
services. Only if using webmail, possibly.
Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
publicity
for RCS.
I can buy this analysis :-)
Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
RCS is already dead.
On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your supposedly private data.
And we are talking RCS, not email. Different technology.
Again irrelevant, it's all big data to Google, and grist for their mill.
I don't knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any
of the T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
Why would I be surprised? The first time I asked Google to have one
gmail address, which at the time was by invitation, I read the
conditions. And they clearly said that email could be read by
machines, not humans, for the purpose of publicity targeting and
improving services. Only if using webmail, possibly.
Which contradicts your earlier claim still quoted above.
On 2023-11-06 17:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS >>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
publicity
for RCS.
I can buy this analysis :-)
Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
RCS is already dead.
Yeah, we know your manias.
On 06.11.23 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 17:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS >>>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
publicity
for RCS.
I can buy this analysis :-)
Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
RCS is already dead.
Yeah, we know your manias.
You are not able to develop a critical attitude towards services you
like as a fanboy.
Google as man-in-the-middle? Never ever.
Google tries for years now but without any success. *LOL*
On 2023-11-06 18:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your
supposedly private data.
No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
And we are talking RCS, not email. Different technology.
Again irrelevant, it's all big data to Google, and grist for their mill.
No, there are differences.
I don't knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any
of the T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
Why would I be surprised? The first time I asked Google to have one
gmail address, which at the time was by invitation, I read the
conditions. And they clearly said that email could be read by
machines, not humans, for the purpose of publicity targeting and
improving services. Only if using webmail, possibly.
Which contradicts your earlier claim still quoted above.
Not at all, it doesn't. Learn to read.
On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 18:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of >>>>>> that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your
supposedly private data.
No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if you
can read it, so can they.
On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
you can read it, so can they.
WOSH! :-D
(ignoring the resti)
On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
WOSH! :-D
(ignoring the resti)
So you have no reply. End of argument.
On 06/11/2023 14:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would >>> get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of >>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly >> use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose >> of improving their services to me."
The - snipped - issue was:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
Well, that's not quite correct anyway, what he should have said was:
"more targeted ads for us".
So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
by Gmail!
The paragraph above suggests that you misunderstand what is really
happening, but that below suggests that you do not. To clarify, the
data they get from scanning your personal data such as emails is used in other places - over 2 million other places, at very least all those
sites using Google's ad services - to match the advertisements shown
to you with your interests as judged by scanning your personal data.
As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
isn't still stupid.)
As we see daily from the amount of obviously fake news that infests
social media, Artificial so-called Intelligence can only do so much.
On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
you can read it, so can they.
WOSH! :-D
(ignoring the resti)
So you have no reply. End of argument.
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
you can read it, so can they.
WOSH! :-D
(ignoring the resti)
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 14:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would >>>>> get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of >>>>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly >>>> use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in >>>> there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose >>>> of improving their services to me."
The - snipped - issue was:
<JL>
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
Well, that's not quite correct anyway, what he should have said was:
"more targeted ads for us".
So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both >>> Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
by Gmail!
The paragraph above suggests that you misunderstand what is really
happening, but that below suggests that you do not. To clarify, the
data they get from scanning your personal data such as emails is used in
other places - over 2 million other places, at very least all those
sites using Google's ad services - to match the advertisements shown
to you with your interests as judged by scanning your personal data.
No, my point (below) is that in my actual experience, Google does
*not* "match the advertisements shown to you with your interests as
judged by scanning your personal [email] data".
It matches ads with my *browsing activity* (Duh!), but it does *not*
match ads based on its scanning of my Gmail. That's the stupid bit.
As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting >>> on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products
which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have >>> explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
isn't still stupid.)
As we see daily from the amount of obviously fake news that infests
social media, Artificial so-called Intelligence can only do so much.
It's not just only doing so much, it's *failing totally*, that's
the/my point.
At other times when this came up, some have mentioned that this
failure might be caused by the EU's strict privacy laws (both Carlos and
I are in the EU), but nobody knows for sure.
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
make a spelling error, just move on.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big* one!
On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to make a spelling error, just move on.
Thank you.
My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.
The problem is that Thunderbird has two languages active, and checks the
same word against two dictionaries (or more). Previously Thunderbird deactivated automatically the current language when you clicked on the
other, allowing only one at a time.
A missing feature in Thunderbird is automatically selecting the spelling language based in criteria, like the folder. The speller is a pain for multilingual people, not smart.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big* one!
Indeed.
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to >>> make a spelling error, just move on.
Thank you.
My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.
It probably should be 'illustrate', with double-l, but I doubt that's
what you meant. You probably meant 'literate', the opposite of
'illiterate'. Or 'illustrious'?
On 2023-11-08 17:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
So you have no reply. End of argument.
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to >>> make a spelling error, just move on.
Thank you.
My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.
It probably should be 'illustrate', with double-l, but I doubt that'sillustrated, being an illustrated person. Maybe the expression did not caught in English. It relates to people from the illustration epoch
what you meant. You probably meant 'literate', the opposite of 'illiterate'. Or 'illustrious'?
(Spanish and French), which wikipedia says it is "Age of Enlightenment"
in English.
What language teachers call "a false friend". A word in the second
language almost identical to another in the first language, with a
totally different meaning.
:-)
...
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
make a spelling error, just move on.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big* one!
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to >> make a spelling error, just move on.
My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to converse
in it. Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a spelling error,
it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that I'm not sure
actually what he intended to say - if anything, that's a malapropism.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between >> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to >>> make a spelling error, just move on.
My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to converse
in it. Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a spelling
error, it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that I'm not
sure actually what he intended to say - if anything, that's a
malapropism.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between >>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.
Yes, we did.
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, >>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record". Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between >>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, >>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he
happens to
make a spelling error, just move on.
My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to
converse in it. Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a
spelling error, it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that
I'm not sure actually what he intended to say - if anything, that's
a malapropism.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference
between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, >>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, >>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given Google's track >>>> record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record". Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the argument?
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
it has taken place within that OS,
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
On 2023-11-09 13:45, Java Jive wrote:
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Irrelevant.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you, >>>>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given Google's track >>>>>> record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record". >>> Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google >>> - could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely
unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other >>> company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place within that OS".
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more than some Usenet poster
who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't
knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the
T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the
difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption.
That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big*
one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google >>> - could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely >>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other >>> company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be customers' private data.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls the
time sharing between applications; in response to user input it launches
the programs that use the encryption; finally and most importantly, OS routines output the decrypted data on the screen or whereever. I think
it's reasonable to describe that process as I did above.
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised to
read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on with
Google and other like companies.
[lots deleted]who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows:
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the
difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding
with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given Google's
track
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track
record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you
misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.
Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely >>>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other >>>> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some >>>> other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be customers' private data.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place
within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls the time sharing between applications; in response to user input it launches
the programs that use the encryption; finally and most importantly, OS routines output the decrypted data on the screen or whereever. I think
it's reasonable to describe that process as I did above.
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more >> than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised to
read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on with
Google and other like companies.
who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows:
On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more targetted
ads for us."]
To which Carlos replied:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:
On 06/11/2023 11:25, Java Jive wrote:
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't
knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the
T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the
difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption.
That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big* >>>>>>>>> one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest >>>> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you >>> misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.
So you keep saying, but your definition of "snooping" seems to be a
rather strange one. Case in point: Google is *not* "snooping" Gmail.
What they do - i.e. scanning - is in their T&Cs. Don't like it, don't
use it. *And*, as I said, but you 'conveniently' ignored, that evil "snooping" of my Gmail hasn't resulted in a single ad in over 15 years.
Bad Google, bad, bad Google!
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE. >>>>>>... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you. >>>>>
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely >>>>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.
Sigh! If you're implying that Google is intercepting user data which
is written to the screen (or coming from the keyboard), then that's a backdoor, which 1) we've said would get them in big, big trouble and 2)
I had specifically excluded.
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
Hmm!? No comment? Strange!
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other >>>>> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real >>>>> argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the >>>> argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be customers'
private data.
As do many others, so it's not a reason to single them out, but you
still did and do.
Face it, you just have an agenda. Don't insult us trying to hide it
behind (non-)technical claptrap.
BTW, I assume you don't actually own or use any Android devices,
Google services, etc..
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after >>>> it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place >>> within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls the
time sharing between applications; in response to user input it launches
the programs that use the encryption; finally and most importantly, OS
routines output the decrypted data on the screen or whereever. I think
it's reasonable to describe that process as I did above.
See above.
so all the general public have to go >>>> on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more >>> than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised to
read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on with
Google and other like companies.
Ah, at least now you include "other like companies", so it's just a general concern and not really relevant to Google's RCS E2EE. Check.
[lots deleted]who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows:
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
Yes, you've been consistent. Consistently biased and consistently
wrong.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?
EOD.
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand. >>>>>> [...]
difference between end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. >>>>>>>>>> That Joerg is siding with you, should be a red flag, a *big* >>>>>>>>>> one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track >>>>>> record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest >>>>> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and >>>> you
misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.
So you keep saying, but your definition of "snooping" seems to be a
rather strange one. Case in point: Google is *not* "snooping" Gmail.
What they do - i.e. scanning - is in their T&Cs. Don't like it, don't
use it. *And*, as I said, but you 'conveniently' ignored, that evil
"snooping" of my Gmail hasn't resulted in a single ad in over 15 years.
Bad Google, bad, bad Google!
Whether or not it's in their T&C, which almost no-one reads anyway -
see the definition of the 'uncontract' in Shoshana Zuboff's book -
scanning email is a form of snooping, because it is concerning
themselves with private things that shouldn't be their concern.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE. >>>>>>>... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you. >>>>>>
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. >>>>>> also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's
extremely
unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of >>>>> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted >>>> data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines
do it.
Sigh! If you're implying that Google is intercepting user data which
is written to the screen (or coming from the keyboard), then that's a
backdoor, which 1) we've said would get them in big, big trouble and 2)
I had specifically excluded.
Sigh! You're trying to play with words again - most people would
think of a backdoor as means of seeing into the encryption system
itself. Are you really trying to claim that a screen-reader for a blind person is a back-door?
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
Hmm!? No comment? Strange!
They both have to write to the screen or other output device, so they
are covered by what I had already written.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real >>>>>> argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that >>>>>> some other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from
the
argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be customers' >>> private data.
As do many others, so it's not a reason to single them out, but you
still did and do.
On the contrary, I specifically wrote, as is still quoted below: "*any* company, *including* Google"
Face it, you just have an agenda. Don't insult us trying to hide it
behind (non-)technical claptrap.
My so-called 'agenda' was only ever to correct what Carlos wrote.
BTW, I assume you don't actually own or use any Android devices,
Google services, etc..
On the contrary I do, I just accept that it's relatively insecure -
apart from anything else, it might be lost or stolen - and thus don't
use it for purposes where security is important.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after >>>>> it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take
place
within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls the >>> time sharing between applications; in response to user input it launches >>> the programs that use the encryption; finally and most importantly, OS
routines output the decrypted data on the screen or whereever. I think >>> it's reasonable to describe that process as I did above.
See above.
There is nothing above that is relevant to my point.
so all the general public have
to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust
Google more
than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised to >>> read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on with
Google and other like companies.
Ah, at least now you include "other like companies", so it's just a
general concern and not really relevant to Google's RCS E2EE. Check.
I've never said anything different.
who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows: >> [lots deleted]
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
Yes, you've been consistent. Consistently biased and consistently
wrong.
On the contrary, you haven't yet been able to substantiate Carlos'
original claim that ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?
... whereas I've been able to give a concrete counter-example.
EOD.
So you keep saying, but then keep replying, so rightly no-one takes any notice of your attempt to make it look as though you've won an argument
when you haven't.
On 2023-11-09 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the
difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding >>>>>>>>> with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given Google's
track
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track >>>>> record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest >>>> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you >>> misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.
None on E2EE streams.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE. >>>>>>... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you. >>>>>
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also >>>>> Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely >>>>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of >>>> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines
do it.
That would be known eventually, and the culprit would get smeared in big
shit and court suits.
It is simply not done.
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other >>>>> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real >>>>> argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some >>>>> other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the >>>> argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be
customers' private data.
I'm sure that it is mentioned in their terms and conditions, and that
data is not E2EE.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after >>>> it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place >>> within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls
the time sharing between applications; in response to user input it
launches the programs that use the encryption; finally and most
importantly, OS routines output the decrypted data on the screen or
whereever. I think it's reasonable to describe that process as I did
above.
No, it isn't.
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google
more
than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised
to read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on
with Google and other like companies.
who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows:
On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
;
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more
targetted ads for us."]
To which Carlos replied:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:
No, they are not known to do just that with E2EE streams.
On 06/11/2023 11:25, Java Jive wrote:
;
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't
knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the
T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
somewhere in there some phrase such as:
;
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
Consistently paranoid without justification.
On 2023-11-09 21:44, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence >>>> of Google's snooping.
So you keep saying, but your definition of "snooping" seems to be a >>> rather strange one. Case in point: Google is *not* "snooping" Gmail.
What they do - i.e. scanning - is in their T&Cs. Don't like it, don't
use it. *And*, as I said, but you 'conveniently' ignored, that evil
"snooping" of my Gmail hasn't resulted in a single ad in over 15 years.
Bad Google, bad, bad Google!
Whether or not it's in their T&C, which almost no-one reads anyway -
I read them.
see the definition of the 'uncontract' in Shoshana Zuboff's book -
scanning email is a form of snooping, because it is concerning
themselves with private things that shouldn't be their concern.
IT IS THEIR CONCERN. They said in their T&C they were going to do it.
You accepted this, and you clicked "I have read the T&C.
On the contrary, you haven't yet been able to substantiate Carlos'
original claim that ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?
... whereas I've been able to give a concrete counter-example.
No, you haven't.
EOD.
So you keep saying, but then keep replying, so rightly no-one takes
any notice of your attempt to make it look as though you've won an
argument when you haven't.
Yours is simply ridiculous.
On 09/11/2023 19:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the >>>>>>>>>> difference between
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand. >>>>>> [...]
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding >>>>>>>>>> with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and >>>>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
No they can't. See below.
and, given
Google's track
record, most probably they will.
You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track >>>>>> record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest >>>>> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you >>>> misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the
evidence of Google's snooping.
None on E2EE streams.
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE. >>>>>>>... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you. >>>>>>
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also >>>>>> Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's
extremely
unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of >>>>> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted >>>> data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines
do it.
That would be known eventually, and the culprit would get smeared in
big shit and court suits.
It is simply not done.
Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other >>>>>> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real >>>>>> argument whatsoever.
So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that
some other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from
the
argument?
I don't omit them, you single them out.
On account of their known record of monetising what should be
customers' private data.
I'm sure that it is mentioned in their terms and conditions, and that
data is not E2EE.
I think you're probably right that it's somewhere in their T&C, but
that's partly the point, few people actually bother to read them, so
it's an 'uncontract' that gives them legal coverage to snoop on people
with many or most of their customers probably being completely unaware
that it is happening.
The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after >>>>> it has taken place within that OS,
But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place >>>> within that OS".
Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own
argument, but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want
me to say it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it
controls the time sharing between applications; in response to user
input it launches the programs that use the encryption; finally and
most importantly, OS routines output the decrypted data on the screen
or whereever. I think it's reasonable to describe that process as I
did above.
No, it isn't.
The words used don't alter the principle of what I'm saying, which is
that E2EE only works between the two endpoints, it's what happens
outside of that that is the potential problem.
so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.
Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google >>>> more
than some Usenet poster
Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised
to read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on
with Google and other like companies.
who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows: >>>
On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
;
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more
targetted ads for us."]
To which Carlos replied:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:
No, they are not known to do just that with E2EE streams.
Not *known* to be happening with E2EE streams doesn't mean that in fact
it isn't happening, because, if it was, presumably the intention would
be to ensure that it wasn't widely known; I have never tried to claim
that it was happening or was not, merely I'm pointing out that in
principle it *could* happen, and that your faith in Google or any
similar company is misplaced, and, even worse, that the reason you gave
for your faith is actually false, as I have shown below ...
On 06/11/2023 11:25, Java Jive wrote:
;
Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't
knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the
T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find >>> > somewhere in there some phrase such as:
;
"I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
purpose of improving their services to me."
So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.
Consistently paranoid without justification.
I'm not paranoid at all, just pointing that you are mistaken in your assertion that "No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do
that. Just collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?" because that is *exactly* how Google make 80% of their revenue:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/
On 09/11/2023 20:49, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 21:44, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence >>>>> of Google's snooping.
So you keep saying, but your definition of "snooping" seems to be a >>>> rather strange one. Case in point: Google is *not* "snooping" Gmail.
What they do - i.e. scanning - is in their T&Cs. Don't like it, don't
use it. *And*, as I said, but you 'conveniently' ignored, that evil
"snooping" of my Gmail hasn't resulted in a single ad in over 15 years. >>>> Bad Google, bad, bad Google!
Whether or not it's in their T&C, which almost no-one reads anyway -
I read them.
Fine, but most people don't.
see the definition of the 'uncontract' in Shoshana Zuboff's book -
scanning email is a form of snooping, because it is concerning
themselves with private things that shouldn't be their concern.
IT IS THEIR CONCERN. They said in their T&C they were going to do it.
You accepted this, and you clicked "I have read the T&C.
Your emails should be private and not anyone else's concern.
On the contrary, you haven't yet been able to substantiate Carlos'
original claim that ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?
... whereas I've been able to give a concrete counter-example.
No, you haven't.
See other post, 80% of Google's income comes from targeted advertising
using big data, exactly opposite to what you wrote above.
EOD.
So you keep saying, but then keep replying, so rightly no-one takes
any notice of your attempt to make it look as though you've won an
argument when you haven't.
Yours is simply ridiculous.
However ridiculous or not it is, it has to be less ridiculous than
yours, because it is supported by the publicly known facts about Google,
Ad Sense, and the income they derive from the latter, as linked
elsewhere in the thread.
On 2023-11-09 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 20:49, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 21:44, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the
evidence
of Google's snooping.
So you keep saying, but your definition of "snooping" seems to be a >>>>> rather strange one. Case in point: Google is *not* "snooping" Gmail. >>>>> What they do - i.e. scanning - is in their T&Cs. Don't like it, don't >>>>> use it. *And*, as I said, but you 'conveniently' ignored, that evil
"snooping" of my Gmail hasn't resulted in a single ad in over 15
years.
Bad Google, bad, bad Google!
Whether or not it's in their T&C, which almost no-one reads anyway -
I read them.
Fine, but most people don't.
Those can not complain.
see the definition of the 'uncontract' in Shoshana Zuboff's book -
scanning email is a form of snooping, because it is concerning
themselves with private things that shouldn't be their concern.
IT IS THEIR CONCERN. They said in their T&C they were going to do it.
You accepted this, and you clicked "I have read the T&C.
Your emails should be private and not anyone else's concern.
Well, it is not so. It is in the T&C. It is not a matter of opinion, it
is the law.
On the contrary, you haven't yet been able to substantiate Carlos'
original claim that ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?
... whereas I've been able to give a concrete counter-example.
No, you haven't.
See other post, 80% of Google's income comes from targeted advertising
using big data, exactly opposite to what you wrote above.
I have, and you are simply wrong.
LOL.
I'll just write you off as paranoic, and EOD.
On 2023-11-09 22:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as
follows:
On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
;
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean >>>> > more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more
targetted ads for us."]
To which Carlos replied:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of >>>> > that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:
No, they are not known to do just that with E2EE streams.
Not *known* to be happening with E2EE streams doesn't mean that in
fact it isn't happening, because, if it was, presumably the intention
would be to ensure that it wasn't widely known; I have never tried to
claim that it was happening or was not, merely I'm pointing out that
in principle it *could* happen, and that your faith in Google or any
similar company is misplaced, and, even worse, that the reason you
gave for your faith is actually false, as I have shown below ...
NO.
What I say is that it can not massively happen. If there is a hole like
that they can not use it on everybody, because it would get known
eventually and there would be hell to pay. Someone would murder them.
Obviously there are spy tools, but they target just a few individuals,
and secretively.
It is impossible to have a backdoor and use it to scan all the messages,
to scan everybody. Simply too dangerous for them.
I'm not paranoid at all, just pointing that you are mistaken in your
assertion that "No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do
that. Just collecting data, massively, to analyze and target
publicity?" because that is *exactly* how Google make 80% of their
revenue:
Ad it is in their T&C, and doesn't apply to E2EE streams.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.Yes, we did.
No, you didn't ...
Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE. >>>>>>... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you. >>>>>
But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.
Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely >>>>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of >>>> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted >>> data (unless there's a backdoor).
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.
Sigh! If you're implying that Google is intercepting user data which
is written to the screen (or coming from the keyboard), then that's a backdoor, which 1) we've said would get them in big, big trouble and 2)
I had specifically excluded.
Sigh! You're trying to play with words again - most people would
think of a backdoor as means of seeing into the encryption system
itself. Are you really trying to claim that a screen-reader for a blind person is a back-door?
BTW, I assume you don't actually own or use any Android devices,
Google services, etc..
On the contrary I do, I just accept that it's relatively insecure -
apart from anything else, it might be lost or stolen - and thus don't
use it for purposes where security is important.
EOD.
So you keep saying, but then keep replying, so rightly no-one takes any notice of your attempt to make it look as though you've won an argument
when you haven't.
On 09/11/2023 22:21, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 20:49, Carlos E. R. wrote:
LOL.
I'll just write you off as paranoic, and EOD.
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
On 09/11/2023 21:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 22:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-09 18:09, Java Jive wrote:
Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as
follows:
On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
;
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean >>>>> > more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more
targetted ads for us."]
To which Carlos replied:
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That >>>>> > would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of >>>>> > that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:
No, they are not known to do just that with E2EE streams.
Not *known* to be happening with E2EE streams doesn't mean that in
fact it isn't happening, because, if it was, presumably the intention
would be to ensure that it wasn't widely known; I have never tried to
claim that it was happening or was not, merely I'm pointing out that
in principle it *could* happen, and that your faith in Google or any
similar company is misplaced, and, even worse, that the reason you
gave for your faith is actually false, as I have shown below ...
NO.
It's no good just denying it, what you wrote is still quoted above, and
the facts that disprove it are still linked, with further additions, below.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/11/2023 19:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.
Sigh! If you're implying that Google is intercepting user data which >>> is written to the screen (or coming from the keyboard), then that's a
backdoor, which 1) we've said would get them in big, big trouble and 2)
I had specifically excluded.
Sigh! You're trying to play with words again - most people would
think of a backdoor as means of seeing into the encryption system
itself. Are you really trying to claim that a screen-reader for a blind
person is a back-door?
Nice try, but no cigar.
Nope, it's anything *but* playing with words. The example you describe
is *Google* deceitfully intercepting the user's (screen/keyboard) data without their knowledge or approval. *That* *is* a backdoor.
The screen-reader for a blind person example is intentional behaviour
with the user's approval.
Two totally different and incomparable situations.
BTW, I assume you don't actually own or use any Android devices,
Google services, etc..
On the contrary I do, I just accept that it's relatively insecure -
apart from anything else, it might be lost or stolen - and thus don't
use it for purposes where security is important.
A case of sarchasm.
So you keep saying, but then keep replying, so rightly no-one takes any
notice of your attempt to make it look as though you've won an argument
when you haven't.
Sigh! I keep replying because you keep coming up with more and even
more weird stuff and I don't want to give anyone the impression that you might actually have a valid argument.
And no, I haven't 'won' an argument, because there *is* no argument,
just your opinion(s).
But if you like this better:
AFAIC, EOD.
On 2023-11-10 01:06, Java Jive wrote:
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
I didn't lose. You did. There are people reading that they know, they
just left the discussion earlier.
Bye. EOD.
On 2023-11-10 00:41, Java Jive wrote:
It's no good just denying it, what you wrote is still quoted above,
and the facts that disprove it are still linked, with further
additions, below.
No, they are not. It is just your paranoia, and it is EOD for me. Bye.
Not even reading the rest.
On 10/11/2023 14:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 01:06, Java Jive wrote:
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
I didn't lose. You did. There are people reading that they know, they
just left the discussion earlier.
Bye. EOD.
To clarify, like it or not, your statement that "no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to
analyze and target publicity?" has been proven to be false; it's exactly
how Google makes 80% of its revenue.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2023 14:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 01:06, Java Jive wrote:
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
I didn't lose. You did. There are people reading that they know, they
just left the discussion earlier.
Bye. EOD.
To clarify, like it or not, your statement that "no big company with a
modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to
analyze and target publicity?" has been proven to be false; it's exactly
how Google makes 80% of its revenue.
You keep harping on that, but your 'argument' is invalid, because
Carlos' remark [1] was in the context of Google's RCS, i.e. E2EE. That
you 'conveniently' snipped [2] the context from your response [3],
doesn't change the context.
Carlos and I have repeatedly reconfirmed that the context was and is
E2EE.
*In the context of E2EE*, your babbling about Gmail "snooping" and Google's revenues from ads, is totally irrelevant and just shows your
agenda.
Give it a rest! You're not fooling anybody, except yourself.
I hope you enjoy the egg and pie.
[1] Message-ID: <kqqrotF8ghsU4@mid.individual.net>
[2] Snipped part *directly* above Carlos' text:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more
data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
See the "RCS" bit you pretend/wish wasn't there!?
[3] Message-ID: <uiaiff$esio$1@dont-email.me>
On 10/11/2023 19:10, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 19:55, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2023 14:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 01:06, Java Jive wrote:
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
I didn't lose. You did. There are people reading that they know, they >>>>> just left the discussion earlier.
Bye. EOD.
To clarify, like it or not, your statement that "no big company with a >>>> modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to
analyze and target publicity?" has been proven to be false; it's
exactly
how Google makes 80% of its revenue.
You keep harping on that, but your 'argument' is invalid, because
Carlos' remark [1] was in the context of Google's RCS, i.e. E2EE. That
you 'conveniently' snipped [2] the context from your response [3],
doesn't change the context.
Carlos and I have repeatedly reconfirmed that the context was and is >>> E2EE.
*In the context of E2EE*, your babbling about Gmail "snooping" and
Google's revenues from ads, is totally irrelevant and just shows your
agenda.
Give it a rest! You're not fooling anybody, except yourself.
I hope you enjoy the egg and pie.
[1] Message-ID: <kqqrotF8ghsU4@mid.individual.net>
[2] Snipped part *directly* above Carlos' text:
<JL>
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more >>> data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
See the "RCS" bit you pretend/wish wasn't there!?
[3] Message-ID: <uiaiff$esio$1@dont-email.me>
Agree to all.
Your original quote in its *entirety* read ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Now, a backdoor so that authorities can capture a few conversations
with a warrant? Maybe. Or so that a spy agency captures data from a limited number of targets? Perhaps.
By the way, this is normally done by placing a trojan at one of the targets.
... and thus contained no such reservation that you are *only*
discussing E2EE.
On 2023-11-05 16:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/11/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message goes >>>> through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able >>>> to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also
answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?". Well, >>>> if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another source of >>>> data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? 😉
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's what >>> E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google publicity >>> for RCS.
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
On 2023-11-10 19:55, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 10/11/2023 14:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 01:06, Java Jive wrote:
LOL! I'll just write you off as naive, and a bad loser.
I didn't lose. You did. There are people reading that they know, they
just left the discussion earlier.
Bye. EOD.
To clarify, like it or not, your statement that "no big company with a
modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to
analyze and target publicity?" has been proven to be false; it's exactly >>> how Google makes 80% of its revenue.
You keep harping on that, but your 'argument' is invalid, because
Carlos' remark [1] was in the context of Google's RCS, i.e. E2EE. That
you 'conveniently' snipped [2] the context from your response [3],
doesn't change the context.
Carlos and I have repeatedly reconfirmed that the context was and is
E2EE.
*In the context of E2EE*, your babbling about Gmail "snooping" and
Google's revenues from ads, is totally irrelevant and just shows your
agenda.
Give it a rest! You're not fooling anybody, except yourself.
I hope you enjoy the egg and pie.
[1] Message-ID: <kqqrotF8ghsU4@mid.individual.net>
[2] Snipped part *directly* above Carlos' text:
<JL>
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean more
data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
See the "RCS" bit you pretend/wish wasn't there!?
[3] Message-ID: <uiaiff$esio$1@dont-email.me>
Agree to all.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
Now, a backdoor so that authorities can capture a few conversations
with a warrant? Maybe. Or so that a spy agency captures data from a
limited number of targets? Perhaps.
By the way, this is normally done by placing a trojan at one of the
targets.
The - snipped - issue was:
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
</JL>
So yes, they do*data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT
both Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having
(a) Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or
triggered by Gmail!
As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly
acting on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after
the fact, I still get*in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for
products which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt
/invoice/etc. are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!?
(Yes, people have explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that
the end result isn't still stupid.)
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]
On 10/11/2023 13:51, Frank Slootweg wrote:
My point was and is that the software needed for such an attack is
likely already there on the device as part of the OS, no-one has to
install it, only to use it, and as such is not what in my experience is
commonly thought of as a backdoor.
That's exactly what a backdoor is, something which is already there.
From your Wikipedia reference: "A backdoor may take the form of a
hidden part of a program". In this case, the alledged "program" is some
part of the OS.
The disagreement is that you say the backdoor is "likely", while
Carlos and I say it's bloody unlikely, because of the exterme
repercussions it would have for Google.
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track record, most probably they will
BTW, I assume you don't actually own or use any Android devices, >>>>> Google services, etc..
On the contrary I do, I just accept that it's relatively insecure -
apart from anything else, it might be lost or stolen - and thus don't >>>> use it for purposes where security is important.
A case of sarchasm.
A case of of misspelling of allegedly the lowest form of wit.
It's not a misspelling. Look it up. (Hint: 'define: <term>' in Google. Might as well give them a few dollars worth of your data.)
Yet you replied again.
Exactly *which* part(s) of "because..." and "AFAIC" didn't you understand!?
On 2023-11-10 22:26, Java Jive wrote:
Your original quote in its *entirety* read ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
;
Now, a backdoor so that authorities can capture a few conversations
with a warrant? Maybe. Or so that a spy agency captures data from a
limited number of targets? Perhaps.
;
By the way, this is normally done by placing a trojan at one of the
targets.
... and thus contained no such reservation that you are *only*
discussing E2EE.
Wrong. You have omitted parts of the context:
+++---------------------------
On 2023-11-05 16:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/11/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message
goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is able >>>>> to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also >>>>> answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?".
Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another
source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? 😉
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's
what
E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
....
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS >>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
publicity
for RCS.
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
....
---------------------------++-
The context I quoted in my post included E2EE and RCS, with RCS being in
the previous paragraph directly above mine.
And if it was not clear we were talking of those, we repeatedly insisted
we were talking of E2EE and RCS several times later (an acronym, E2EE,
that is new to me, I normally prefer long words, so it may not occur in
my writings about it. I say this in case you grep for E2EE only).
Every post is part of a thread, a conversation, and you have to look atWhich is the problem, you stated *explicitly* an absolutist but false
more posts than one for context. And in my post I left enough material
of the ongoing conversation, so that everybody could know what we were talking about.
And what I wrote in that post doesn't make sense unless read in the
context of RCS and E2EE.
You are intentionally perverting what we said.
On 10/11/2023 22:09, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-10 22:26, Java Jive wrote:
Your original quote in its *entirety* read ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
;
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
;
Now, a backdoor so that authorities can capture a few conversations
with a warrant? Maybe. Or so that a spy agency captures data from a
limited number of targets? Perhaps.
;
By the way, this is normally done by placing a trojan at one of the
targets.
... and thus contained no such reservation that you are *only*
discussing E2EE.
Wrong. You have omitted parts of the context:
+++---------------------------
On 2023-11-05 16:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 05/11/2023 14:24, Theo wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I do wonder about End-to-End Encryption when the encrypted message >>>>>> goes
through Google. They could simply be the man-in-the-middle who is
able
to read the message because they set up the encryption. It might also >>>>>> answer another question raised as to "what's in RCS for Google?".
Well,
if they are able to read those encrypted messages it's another
source of
data for them to sell that others can't read and make use of.
Or does that sound too much like another conspiracy theory? 😉
Yes. E2EE means that Google in the middle can't intercept. That's >>>>> what
E2EE means - if they can, it's not E2EE.
....
Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add
RCS
support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
publicity
for RCS.
I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
....
---------------------------++-
The context I quoted in my post included E2EE and RCS, with RCS being
in the previous paragraph directly above mine.
And if it was not clear we were talking of those, we repeatedly
insisted we were talking of E2EE and RCS several times later (an
acronym, E2EE, that is new to me, I normally prefer long words, so it
may not occur in my writings about it. I say this in case you grep for
E2EE only).
I have apologised for allowing myself to follow the moving goalposts, I
note that you have not apologised for making the original misleading claim.
On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
I have apologised for allowing myself to follow the moving goalposts,
I note that you have not apologised for making the original misleading
claim.
WRONG. You have to apologize to me for manipulation of quotes and
perverting what I said.
On 10/11/2023 18:55, Frank Slootweg wrote:[...]
On 09/11/2023 10:17, Java Jive wrote:
No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track record, most probably they will
... which, having now done the research outlined in a recent reply that Carlos apparently didn't bother to read, I would now accept is probably overstated, because they do seem to have made some attempts to clean up
their act. Nevertheless, as that research indicated, their record for snooping is not good, is still pretty much the worst known of all such companies, and there is still plenty of legal wiggle-room for them to regress, so I still think, even accepting his originally unstated
context of E2EE, that his faith is misplaced.
Yet you replied again.
Exactly *which* part(s) of "because..." and "AFAIC" didn't you understand!?
The fact that you both keep saying 'EOD' but then keep replying.
On 10/11/2023 22:09, Carlos E. R. wrote:[...]
On 2023-11-10 22:26, Java Jive wrote:
Your original quote in its *entirety* read ...
On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Every post is part of a thread, a conversation, and you have to look at more posts than one for context. And in my post I left enough material
of the ongoing conversation, so that everybody could know what we were talking about.
And what I wrote in that post doesn't make sense unless read in the
context of RCS and E2EE.
Which is the problem, you stated *explicitly* an absolutist but false
claim in "no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity?" but did
not state equally *explicitly* the context that you wished to apply to it.
You are intentionally perverting what we said.
No, I'm going by how I - and seemingly most or all others that have
replied in this subthread, even initially Frank Slootweg judging by his
first reply to me - initially read your original claim.
On 10/11/2023 23:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
I have apologised for allowing myself to follow the moving goalposts,
I note that you have not apologised for making the original misleading
claim.
WRONG. You have to apologize to me for manipulation of quotes and perverting what I said.
Bollocks to that, I merely quoted facts in reply to the false claim that
you yourself wrote.
And unlike you hypocrites,
when I say EOD, I mean it.
Subthread ignored.
--
Fake news kills!
On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 2023-11-10, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-11 00:00, Java Jive wrote:
I thought I'd seen an EOD ? Must be dreaming. Ok back to the tedium
RCS is already dead.
On this Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
RCS is already dead.
If RCS is dead, why is Apple saying they'll be adding RCS into iOS 18?
On 25.11.23 15:35, Larry Wolff wrote:
On this Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:21:32 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
RCS is already dead.
If RCS is dead, why is Apple saying they'll be adding RCS into iOS 18?
Tactics. It won't change almost nothing.
The *European Digital Markets Act* is looming over all the big tech companies. RCS is de facto dead.
Android users will be even the bigger losers trying to chat with
iOS-users. Take Signal or something else but certainly not such a gimp.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:10:06 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,697 |
