Re: Google is preparing to replace RCS with MLS

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

Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:08 +0200 :
 

There is a lot to this story where I brought up the slums and being in
abject fear of your own wife & kids & neighbors as a philosophical point.
>
If you set up a phone properly, you do not need to lock that phone down.

>
A "proper setup" *is* locking it down by at least using a screen pattern
or PIN to protect it.

 Philosophy being what it is, what matters more than anything is that a
person who knows computers has a "plan" and a person who doesn't, doesn't.
 My plan is to set up the phone so that it's efficient for...
a. Daily use
b. Backup & restore
c. Privacy
 Most people have no plan whatsoever, where I would assume you know
computers well enough to have a plan for those three things also.
 Since most people have no plan at all, they have to lock it up.
I don't have to lock it at all.
 And my data is far safer than that of the people who lock it up.

You just lock it differently...
...so I guess you DO live in a slum, huh?

 

It's only people who don't understand computers who lock personal phones.

>
I also lock my computers - without usernamen/password none of my
computers can be used. And I've been working as software developer,
network administrator and team lead in the IT industry for 30 years now.

 I've been using computers since the 1970s, and I've built them from scratch
(Motorola 68701) so I'm well aware that people have no plan for
safeguarding their data which is why they're forced to lock them up.
 Under that username/password they have no plan whatsoever for privacy.
 

>

We're going to have to understand that I had already stated that I wasn't
talking about a corporate device but about a typical personal use device.

>
Also for personal use devices I prefer to have at least basic protection.

 All my personal data is locked up in encrypted containers on all computers.

Only people who live in slums need encryption.

 

Also, we have to understand Carlos and others were completely ignorant that
an Android phone works perfectly fine without any login/password.

>
Only, if you do not use apps which *require* login/password - for
example for Google Pay you *must* enable some kind of lock screen. Also
for some bankinkg apps you *must* enable a lock screen.

 Again, philosophically you have to set up your computer for privacy from
the start, so, if you have Google Pay or Banking Apps, you need to lock
_them_ up separately. Google doesn't design it that way but if you know how
to use a computer, you will already know you can lock individual apps.
 Only people who don't know anything about computers lock it up at the top.
 

It turns out that Carlos has absolutely no understanding of how phones work
in that there is no Internet server login/password required for texting
despite the fact he repeatedly insisted Internet is required for texting.

>
Yes, if you defined "texting" as "using SMS".
Even RCS already requires internet.

 That was my question of you and Andy (as Carlos wouldn't know anything).
If RCS or MLS require the Internet, then that's not good for privacy.
 

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

>
No, only SMS works fine without any connection to the internet. And this
has nothing to do with "Android" but is a service in mobile networks.
>
However "Android texting" may not only be SMS.

 I guess you're right that MMS uses the "Internet" in a way that doesn't
require a data plan. I assume that's what you're intimating above, Right?
 

We have to understand that a well set up device has no personal data
accessible to anyone - even the purse snatcher who lives in your house.

>
"Well set up" means with lock screen enabled. Otherwise this is only
true if you do not store *any* personal data on it, even no phone numbers.

 I keep my personal data in encrypted containers. It's not hard to do.
I keep passwords in KeePassXC (Keepass2Android on the phone) too.
 Philosophically, I think people who spread their data and logins about on
the phone are the ones who are forced to lock up the phone at the top.
 But locking the phone or computer at the top has efficiency penalties.
 It's like keeping the wife's jewelry in the living room and kitchen so that
you're forced to lock the front door with a dozen padlocks just because you
don't know enough to put the jewelry in its own locked safe.

Is your front door unlocked when you're out?

 The philosophical part about efficiency is:
a. You go through the front door a lot
b. You only have to open the safe infrequently
 This is why I can argue with reasonable logic that anyone locking the
computer or phone at the top level doesn't know how to use computers.
 Or... they truly do live in the slums in abject fear of everyone around
them (which is sad that they're that deathly afraid of people they love).