On 20 Feb 2024 at 09:40:44 GMT, "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:[...]
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
For some people it comes down to who is more trustworthy with their
personal information, Apple or Google/Facebook.
For 'instant messaging' - i.e. iMessage versus WhatsApp - and video >>>> calling/conferencing - i.e. FaceTime versus WhatsApp - it's irrelevant, >>>> because end-to-end-encryption ensures that no-one has access to "their >>>> personal information".
Yeah, right?
You really think Apple, Google, Facebook don?t have the ability to
intercept and decode ?encrypted data??
They probably can and probably will do if demanded by law enforcement,
etc..
They can't and don't as part of their normal way of operating. That's
the point.
BTW, I don't understand why you're throwing Google in the mix, because
Google is not involved in iMessage, nor WhatsApp.
('Facebook' is involved, if you actually mean to say 'Meta' (which
WhatsApp is part of.)
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-02-20 10:07, soyon wrote:
David B. wrote on 20.02.2024 06:31
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/794583/apple-support-communities-asc-forums-access/
Nice find.
I love the post with the screenshot from Apple saying essentially
that Apple's walled garden falls apart like a Potemkin village the
instant you don't constantly and repeatedly, day after day, always
log into Apple's servers (every day of your life, forever!) using
the same Apple ID.
Your basic premise is false and misleading (that you Arlen?) - and
that you're echoing off of that idiot diminishes your very low
standing even further.
You can do everything on an iPhone communications wise that you can
do with Android. That is e-mail, SMS/MMS, other messaging platforms,
surf the web, etc. and so on, w/o being logged into Apple's system.
And of course to the extent that 10's of thousands of apps provide
their own servers, etc., those are also accessible w/o logging into
Apple's servers.
The benefit of being logged into iCloud is the other Apple provided
services for communications and integration of services (as oft
listed in the past). This is the "apple eco-system" that makes using
using various Apple devices such as a Mac and iPhone so seamless and
convenient. All of this over a very strongly encrypted
communications system run by a company that sells products and
services - not people's information - like Android producer Google.
So, bleat out your nonsense attack on Apple again and again and
again, it doesn't change the reality of things.
Can you setup a new iPhone without an AppleID?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think." https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
On this Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:47:15 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
E2E encryption means exactly that.
Except when E2E doesn't mean anything at all, which is when everyone is not fully inside the Apple walled garden (which requires an iCloud account).
Apple's own words are below from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
"With standard data protection, iCloud content that you share with other people is not end-to-end encrypted.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does >>>> Apple do that?
Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without >>> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends, >>> and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. - >>> from my use of Google products.
When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.
Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you
two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than >>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail
address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
Sad that you shared your birthday.
I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.
The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
Same here.
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of
you very accurate.
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data" brings them exactly nothing.
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.
[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> >>> wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data. >>>
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless, unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.
But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.
Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the
data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data" brings them exactly nothing.
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense)
against you.
[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!
On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google
admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does
Apple do that?
Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without >> your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU.
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban
legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have
yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.
When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.
Alan wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:22:00 -0800 :
Don't make me look it up if you don't believe it - first look it up.Why don't you show your support.
Then come back and tell me Apple didn't get sued for lying about privacy. >>
Idiot.
The user badgolferman was smart enough to have looked it up before even thinking of denying it - but you appear to be too stupid to look it up.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apple-privacy-tracking-lawsuit/
Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its practice of
collecting and sending analytics data from iPhone users,
regardless of whether or not the user gave consent.
Since you are an idiot, I realize you won't click on the link before
denying everything contained in it so I will not be reading nor responding
to more of your idiocy.
The user badgolferman was a lot smarter than you are as he apparently
looked it up since it's extremely well published information world wide.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique Apple ID as was recently described in this information technology privacy report.
Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/
The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.
"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code to generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese tech company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of device information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in violation of Apple's policies, which do not allow developers to 'derive data from a device for
the purpose of uniquely identifying it,'" the researchers wrote.
The researchers also said that Apple isn't required to follow the policy in many cases, making it possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of data it collects. They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes
of "obtaining information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific purpose of making a credit determination."
Representatives from Apple declined to comment. Alibaba representatives didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Based on a comparison of 1,685 apps published before and after ATT went
into effect, the number of tracking libraries they used remained roughly
the same. The most widely used libraries-including Apple's SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase Analytics, and Google Crashlytics-didn't change. Almost a quarter of the studied apps claimed that they didn't collect any user data, but the majority of them-80 percent-contained at least one tracker library.
On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect user data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted 2.5
tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose having access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better with about a 47 percent failure rate."
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 13:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> >>>>> wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key >>>>>> (name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data. >>>>>
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing >>>>> more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is >>>> well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services. >>>> It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at >>>> all.
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail,
which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to >>> read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.
You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to,
certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want
with your data.
Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.
And all of the functionality can be enabled/disabled in your account.
And if anything changes - changes, additions, deletions, etc. - you get e-mail and notifications. I've disabled anything which even smells of 'personalization', hence my postive, privacy-safe experience.
As usual, it's people who are *not* using the products/services of company Y (Can't say 'X", can I? :-)), who spout all kinds of FUD, urban legends, etc. on how bad company Y is.
You have been / are on the receiving end of this as they spout similar crap about Apple, so it would be nice if you showed the same
objectivity, which you expect of others.
[Cue AJL! :-)]
But do go on inflating the flat cushion as much as you can while
ignoring the crush of the big cushions around you.
Ah, big cushions! Nice and fluffy!
Until inflated to max capacity when they are as hard as truck tires.
Mine are nice and soft. Just enough air to be soft, but not too much
to become dangerous. But then I've a brain and am not afraid to use it.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 13:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google >>>>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does >>>>>> Apple do that?
Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how >>>>> they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU. >>>>>
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have >>>>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. - >>>>> from my use of Google products.
When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of
them on her laptop within 24 hours.
Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence'
share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you >>> two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.
1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.
I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.
And Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than >>>>> the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail >>>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
Sad that you shared your birthday.
I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday.
So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data has
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.
Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account
data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face
very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.
The public info ('About me') is only my name and my Gmail address. All >>> other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name
(just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).
The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called FS@someemail.com gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data
Same for these three.
*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound
by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.
More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to
you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.
That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.
But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get
*no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..
I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date:
government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
Same here.
Not what you said earlier.
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if
the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.) And as they "fill the blanks" and
correlate and "fingerprint" your behaviour, the blank filling
accelerates and the matrices of data condense making their portrait of >>>> you very accurate.
They can't get everything, but they do get an astonishing amount of
data. Do they use it "maliciously"? Not so much other than to sell the >>>> data to those wishing to target you to buy something.
Yes, several posters keep talking about this alleged "astonishing
amount of data", but as I explained, I don't see *any* ill effects
(other than *misdirected* [1] ads). So this "astonishing amount of data" >>> brings them exactly nothing.
You haven't detected it doing anything harmful. Yet, the fact that
bunches of corporations and data brokers know more about you than you
realize only has potential to harm you.
Sorry, but this is way too much FUD, urban legend and conspiracy
theory for my taste. There's no substance whatsoever. Yes, there are
dangers from being on the net, but *this* 'danger' for *me*, is much
much lower on the to-worry-about scale than most - if not all- others.
OTOH, if you end up in a legal dispute, you can be sure the adversary
(some corporation) will also purchase that data in order to glean as
much information to buttress their case (whether in defense or offense) >>>> against you.
[1] Like ads for products I already (recently) purchased and for which
the order, receipt, etc. are in my Gmail folders, which Google allegedly >>> scans. So they're waste their clients money and my time on superfluous
ads. Go figure!
If you make an insurance claim, esp. for a medical issue while traveling
outside your country (or coverage), you can be sure the ins. co will
comb through the data looking for the slightest excuse to not pay a claim.
Guess I was lucky then when our EUR 50K claim - the largest parts for
the medical bills - went through without a hitch!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you.
You're correct
Using <news:ur38nk.ru4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
I've been switching off all unwanted tracking, in my Google
Account, in the Google/Samsung parts of my phone, in the Microsoft parts
of my Windows laptop, etc..
I wonder if the most Apple users are using Google Maps on their iPhones?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:53:50 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
iMessage has been end-to-end for a long
time and messaging is the context of the present topic.
That "long time" was only a short time ago. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:15:27 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by
default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as well, >>> Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on iCloud."
Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.
The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is the encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on iCloud.
End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption key.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 15:07, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 13:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key >>>>>>>> (name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing >>>>>>> more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is >>>>>> well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services. >>>>>> It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at >>>>>> all.
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless,
unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail, >>>>> which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to >>>>> read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.
You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them
telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to, >>>> certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want >>>> with your data.
Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in
detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.
Nothing to do with Apple.
Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.
On 2024-02-21 04:28, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 15:07, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 13:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any >>>>>>>>> given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your
personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is >>>>>>>> doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner >>>>>>> co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their
services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing
anything at
all.
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless, >>>>>> unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in
agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail, >>>>>> which is actually the real problem, because most people are not
going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.
You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them >>>>> telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to, >>>>> certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they >>>>> want
with your data.
Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in >>>> detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners.
Nothing to do with Apple.
Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the
degree to
which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.
It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 13:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 04:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Regardless of what iOS can or cannot do, the fact remains that Google >>>>>>>> admits to using your private data, and even use it to make money. Does >>>>>>>> Apple do that?
Google uses "your private data" to present ads to *you*. That's how
they "make money", no "admit" nor "even" about it.
If they would use "your private data" for any other purpose - without
your consent - they will be sued to smithereens, at least in the EU. >>>>>>>
As I've said many times before, contrary to all the FUD, urban legends,
and other nonsense which is frequently spouted in these groups, I have >>>>>>> yet to experience *any* ill effect - i.e. 'spam', privacy issues, etc. -
from my use of Google products.
When I browse Amazon for products, my girlfriend sees ads for some of >>>>>> them on her laptop within 24 hours.
Same here. Probably you two are 'behind' a NAT router and 'hence' >>>>> share the same IP, which makes it hard for the ad generation to tell you >>>>> two apart. So much for the famous 'fingerprinting'.
1) Yes, and 2) that's not what I was referring to by fingerprinting.
I know. Here I am saying that *browser* fingerprinting apparently
isn't working. If it was, the ad should be able to target you, instead
of your girlfriend.
You took one thing to be something that it isn't. The ad targeted at
her was due to IP address and had nothing to do with fingerprinting.
Duh! That's what I'm saying. They *should* - at least - have used
browser fingerprinting, but they didn't.
So you "shared" your birthday with Google. Not smart. That data hasAnd Google does not even *have* any of my "private data", other than
the data which I provided, which is limited to my name, my/their e-mail >>>>>>> address, mobile number and birthday. That's it.
Sad that you shared your birthday.
I don't *share* my birthday, my Google *Account* has my birthday. >>>>
since been sold to dozens of data brokers and onward to thousands of others.
Nope. Wrong continent. Google can't use - let alone sell - my account >>> data without my explicit approval, especially since I've specifically
turned off most sections of my public data. If they did, they would face >>> very hefty and repeated penalties. EU GDPR and all that.
And they do. They don't care. The fines they pay are cost of doing
business.
More FUD. Where's your proof, facts, etc.? Yes, Google, Apple, the
lot, get frequent hefty fines, but not for selling data from people's
account which they specifically turned off. When doing business,
companies have to prove that they need certain data - i.e. in this
example someone's birthday - in order to be able to do business. If they can't prove that, that's by default a violation.
other information can be disabled/locked and is disabled/locked.
You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with you. >>>>
The matrix proximate to you called Frank gets more data
Sorry to rain on your parade, but my browser does not reveal my name >>> (just verified again with GRC's Shields UP!!).
The matric proximate to you called Slootweg gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called FS@someemail.com gets more data
The matrix proximate to you called your birthday gets more data
Same for these three.
*If* *I* provide any of this information, I do so in creating an
account, a commercial transaction, etc. and all these websites are bound >>> by the same EU laws with hefty penalties.
See above. Profit trumps.
Nope. There are limits to what they can do. Besides the hefty fines,
the lawsuits, the reputation damage, etc. they can be banned from doing
any business at all. Google, Apple, et al have been repeatedly beaten
into submission. It works. (BTW, Apple just got another 500M Euro fine
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the Financial Times).)
More matrices are created and eventually the statistics of one
correlates with the stats of another - they partially coalesce into
denser and denser matrices with a high probability of being related to >>>> you. This is innocuous - until it isn't.
That's the FUD and urban legends which are spouted. I don't dispute
that these things can/will happen to not-so-smart people or/and outside
the EU.
But they don't happen to *me*. I do get *no* personalized ads, I get >>> *no* 'spam' (UCE/UBE), I get *no* unsollicited phone calls/SMS, etc..
That is not the sole use of the data collected about you. It has value
in ways that are not related to advertising or selling to you.
Yes, I know. As I said, (with my precautions) sofar, so good. (As I
said (see quote below),) Much higher dangers than this to worry about.
I use a fake birthday on all
websites (except where legally required to use my real birth date: >>>>>> government tax sites, bank, driver's license and insurance).
Same here.
Not what you said earlier.
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently
assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use
and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.
Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.
On websites, I do the same as you (give no birthday or a fake one if >>> the website insists and only use my real birthday where legally
required).
Amazon doesn't use a website? Wow, I really ...
Yes, they do. Your *point* being? (Clue-by-four: I don't use Amazon.
Guess why.)
for violating EU rules for music streaming services (reported by the Financial Times).)
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-21 04:28, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 15:07, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:Nothing to do with Apple.
On 2024-02-20 13:34, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 12:02, Oliver wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:45:18 -0500, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote
Data brokers maintain rather large matrices of data for any given key
(name, e-mail address, etc.)
Indeed, you are correct 'they' do a lot of mining of your personal data.
"From ads to analytics, everyone's favorite 'privacy' company is doing
more with your data than you might think."
https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-ipad-privacy-problems-data-gathering-1849855092
The degree to which Apple does collect data for use with partner co's is
well identified in agreements you make with Apple to use their services.
It is a pale shadow of what other co's do ... w/o disclosing anything at
all.
No offense, but "what other co's do" is a rather meaningless, >>>>>>> unsubstantiated slur. Most companies I know of, also document in >>>>>>> agreements what they do and don't do. Often in painstakingly detail, >>>>>>> which is actually the real problem, because most people are not going to
read/understand it all and just tap/click 'Agree'.
You have no idea what is being collected about you by Google w/o them >>>>>> telling you anything at all; and then the co's they sell your data to, >>>>>> certainly do not come running to you to ask permission to what they want >>>>>> with your data.
Sorry to rain on your Apple-biased parade, but Google documents in >>>>> detail what they collect and how it's used by them and their partners. >>>>
Everything to do with Apple. You say that Apple documents the degree to >>> which they collect data in their agreements with their customers and
imply that other companies - and specifically Google - don't do that.
That's your Apple-bias, because, as I described, Google *does*
document what they collect/do.
It's not Apple bias. It was a description of Google's core revenue
model: the user is the product. That you raise Apple as a deflection
from it is on you.
Nice try, but no cigar. *You* mentioned Apple's practices *first* and slurred "other co's". Then *you* brought up Google as an example of
these "other co's". I countered your slur with facts on what Google is
doing.
So any deflection is on you.
As to the "the user is the product", that's true for most if not all
free services and - as I explained - in the Google case, the user has
several controls on what the 'product' does and does not conprise.
But don't let that stop your unsubstantiated contentless rants.
AFAIC. EOD.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:53:50 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
iMessage has been end-to-end for a long time and messaging is the
context of the present topic.
That "long time" was only a short time ago. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted by default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end encrypted as
well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to backups stored on
iCloud."
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:15:27 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/icloud-backup-encryption
"While data stored locally on iPhones and iPads are fully encrypted
by default, and communications over iMessage are end-to-end
encrypted as well, Apple has yet to extend the same security to
backups stored on iCloud."
Re-read what you cite for comprehension v. what I wrote.
The point was the article discussed what few people realize which is
the encryption key was known to Apple for all their iMessage data on
iCloud.
End to end encryption means nothing when a company has the encryption
key.
On 2024-02-20 12:54, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:20 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
You don't know how it works. Every time an action you take on the
internet with various websites, a little bit more is associated with
you.
You're correct that Apple knows everything you do with your unique
Apple ID as was recently described in this information technology
privacy report.
You apparently don't understand...
Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple
says
...that Apple is not:
"companies, particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work
around the protections and stockpile even more data."
The paper warned that despite Apple's insincere promise of more
transparency, ATT might gives its users a false sense of security.
Weird that you left that out of the paragraph you quoted above this paragraph...
...isn't it?
"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code
to generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese
tech company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of
device information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in
violation of Apple's policies, which do not allow developers to
'derive data from a device for the purpose of uniquely identifying
it,'" the researchers wrote.
"nine iOS apps".
How many of them were Apple's?
blah blah blah
'6 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
Overall, we find that Apple’s new policies largely live up to its
promises on making tracking more difficult.'
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>
Small wonder you failed to include this.
[Disclaimer: Yes, I said EOD, but it took a while for this mind-boggler
to sink in.]
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-21 05:12, Frank Slootweg wrote:[...]
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-20 15:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
I said my real birthday is in my Google *Account*. You apparently >>>>> assumed that's public info, but it isn't.
I never claimed it was public info. But it is info Amazon have (and use >>>> and sell). You were a fool to give that up to them.
Huh? Amazon? What stuff are you on? I never mentioned Amazon.
Quite right. As I'm on this thread I'm also shopping for parts on Amazon
- fuddled my message. Astounding that I can find a Chinese co. making
replacement parts for a near 30 year old American made tool - and it's
here a few days later...
You're not serious, are you!?
Here you are lecturing someone, who is using a tightly controlled
Google Account, on the alleged severe privacy risks of such use, while
you are shopping at *Amazon*!
So Amazon having, using and selling your personal information is
perfectly fine in your book, but if (you say) Google does so, it's the
end of the world as we know it!?
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
And you say you use *Google* *Maps*! Bad boy, bad boy, bad bad boy!
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not
take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-22 05:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not >>> take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.
What Amazon knows about me is a pale shadow of what Google knows about you.
So you keep saying, but you have exactly zilch to back up your
*opinion*, *both* ways.
Face it. You have 0 clue what Google collect about you.
Because someone on Usenet says so, without providing any proof or
facts? <barf!>
On 2024-02-22 09:40, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-22 05:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:So you keep saying, but you have exactly zilch to back up your
Anyway, with you shopping at Amazon, you've shown that we should not >>>> take your stance on privacy issues all that seriously.
What Amazon knows about me is a pale shadow of what Google knows about you. >>
*opinion*, *both* ways.
Face it. You have 0 clue what Google collect about you.
Because someone on Usenet says so, without providing any proof or
facts? <barf!>
The old "ridicule it and it will go away retort" is tired and weak.
Esp. as Google have had 2+ decades to accumulate data on you (and still do).
And (pro tip) their use of what they know about you is not restricted to ads. That is only part of it.
On 2024-02-18 14:46, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Well - Microsoft Edge and Bing are not considered a "core platform
service" due to their low market share.
Please cite where those are the reasons the newly sober European
Commission made that decision.
Well - that's the only logical reason. A system which is only used by
3-5% of all users can hardly be seen as "core platform service".
IOW you don't know why, precisely, they made this decision.
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.
On 2/19/2024 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:
<snip>
I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision >> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger. >>
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.
It is not absurd.
I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.
sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:
[...]
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of
the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no other choice.
Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:
[...]
These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.
Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only
on iOS. Good luck trying to convince dozens of other people to install
your favourite messenger instead to keep in touch with you.
sms, 2024-02-20 00:07:
On 2/19/2024 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:
<snip>
I read and understood what sms said which if it's true, means the decision >>> to buy an iPhone is based on absurd criteria, since it's ridiculous to
choose a platform by a single default app, such as a browser or messenger. >>>
I'm not saying people don't do it.
I'm saying it's an absurd reason for choosing a platform.
It is not absurd.
I have a niece who's husband's relative works for Samsung. For years she
was using Samsung phones that she could buy at a huge discount. Suddenly
she switched to iPhone. She said that the reason was that all the
parents their kids' sports teams used iMessage to communicate things
like schedules, who was responsible for bringing drinks and snacks,
carpool arrangements, etc.. She was in no position to try to convert
everyone else to use WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, or whatever. So she
capitulated for a very non-absurd reason.
These days she could use something like AirMessage but that is a system
that she would not know how to set up. They are not poor and have no
problem spending more money on iPhones.
Well - AirMessage is not trivial to install. You need a running mac (at
least in a VM) and a gateway program:
<https://airmessage.org/install/>
Also the app for Android was last updated end of 2022:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.tagavari.airmessage>
No update in more than a year? Is this thing still supported at all?
Looks more like a proof of concept to me.
On 2024-02-25 14:31, Arno Welzel wrote:
Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:
[...]
These are computers.Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it. >>
is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only
False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products
you have. (the Eco-System).
Well - AirMessage is not trivial to install. You need a running mac (at
least in a VM) and a gateway program:
<https://airmessage.org/install/>
Also the app for Android was last updated end of 2022:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.tagavari.airmessage>
No update in more than a year? Is this thing still supported at all?
Looks more like a proof of concept to me.
On 2024-02-25 14:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:
[...]
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of >>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then
getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no
other choice.
What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 22:05:
On 2024-02-25 14:31, Arno Welzel wrote:
Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
[...]
These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.
Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there >>>> is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only >>>
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.
Yes - but the it is just SMS/MMS then and not "iMessage". In particular
you also can't join group conversions.
Of course if using plain old SMS/MMS to exchange messages with single
person is enough, than there is no reason to get a smartphone at all
just for this. Plain old mobile phones provide SMS as well.
[...]
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products >>> you have. (the Eco-System).
I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use
and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me
compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom
launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for
example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on
the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.
All apps accept a swipe from left to right as "back".
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 22:05:
On 2024-02-25 14:31, Arno Welzel wrote:
Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:
[...]
These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.
Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there >>> is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only
False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.
Yes - but the it is just SMS/MMS then and not "iMessage". In particular
you also can't join group conversions.
Of course if using plain old SMS/MMS to exchange messages with single
person is enough, than there is no reason to get a smartphone at all
just for this. Plain old mobile phones provide SMS as well.
[...]
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for
the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products
you have. (the Eco-System).
I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use
and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on
the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 21:56:
On 2024-02-25 14:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:
[...]
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of >>>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices.
In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then
getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no >>> other choice.
What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features
of iMessage without using iMessage?
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2024-02-26 21:38, Chris wrote:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 22:05:
On 2024-02-25 14:31, Arno Welzel wrote:
Andrew, 2024-02-19 06:28:False. Messages on iPhone/iOS will communicate with people using
[...]
These are computers.
Picking platforms by default app is as ridiculous as is anyone who does it.
Well - if you have many friends or collegues who use iMessage then there >>>>>> is no choice to use Android. iMessage is not available for Android, only >>>>>
Android via the telco. Indeed, from my Mac I can communicate with
people using Android text messages as my Mac will use my iPhone to
execute the SMS/MMS communication.
Yes - but the it is just SMS/MMS then and not "iMessage". In particular >>>> you also can't join group conversions.
Of course if using plain old SMS/MMS to exchange messages with single
person is enough, than there is no reason to get a smartphone at all
just for this. Plain old mobile phones provide SMS as well.
[...]
People don't get iPhones to have the Messages app. They get them for >>>>> the overall experience which is further enhanced the more Apple products >>>>> you have. (the Eco-System).
I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use >>>> and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me
compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom >>>> launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for >>>> example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on >>>> the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.
All apps accept a swipe from left to right as "back".
That would be very confusing for me, because my phone accepts a swipe
from right edge to left as "back".
Visually, that seems odd to me. But I guess it comes down to what you're
used to.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:[...]
I got an iPhone from my employer as my daily driver for professional use
and I don't really like it. The whole UI experience is awkward for me
compared to what I am used to on my Google Pixel. Yes, for people who
are used to iOS, it may be fine. But not having the option for a custom
launcher dealing with different of ways how to go "back" in an app (for
example some provide an icon for that on top, Safari has the buttons on
the bottom, some don't have "back" at all etc.) makes it not easier for me.
All apps accept a swipe from left to right as "back".
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:[...]
That would be very confusing for me, because my phone accepts a swipe
from right edge to left as "back".
Visually, that seems odd to me. But I guess it comes down to what you're
used to.
On 2024-02-26 13:54, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 21:56:
On 2024-02-25 14:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:
[...]
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a coreIn the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since
platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of >>>>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices. >>>>
iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then >>>> getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that
platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no >>>> other choice.
What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features
of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a
group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
On 2024-02-26 13:54, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-02-25 21:56:
On 2024-02-25 14:30, Arno Welzel wrote:
sms, 2024-02-19 04:44:
[...]
Obviously Apple decided that the downside of making iMessage a core >>>>>> platform outweighed the upside. At least in the U.S., iMessage is one of >>>>>> the major reasons that consumers choose iPhones over Android devices. >>>>>In the U.S. iPhones have a bigger market share in general. And since >>>>> iMessage is only available on iOS there is of course no other way then >>>>> getting an iPhone if you want to keep in touch with others using that >>>>> platform. But that's not because iMessage is so great - there is just no >>>>> other choice.
What do you mean "there is just no other choice"?
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features
of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a
group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a phone number, not to a messenger group.
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features >>>> of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a
group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a phone
number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the group
were all enlisted by phone number, however.
Alan Browne, 2024-03-02 15:00:
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features >>>>> of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a
group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a phone >>> number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a
message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the group
were all enlisted by phone number, however.
If a user sends an SMS message, he can only send it to a phone number.
There is no phone number which will address the whole group. So what did
I miss here?
On 2024-03-02 16:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-02 15:00:
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features >>>>>> of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a
group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a phone >>>> number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a
message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the group
were all enlisted by phone number, however.
If a user sends an SMS message, he can only send it to a phone number.
There is no phone number which will address the whole group. So what did
I miss here?
I'd have to revisit it, but I do recall chats where a reply from SMS
users appeared on two or more iPhones.
Alan Browne, 2024-03-04 15:31:
On 2024-03-02 16:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-02 15:00:
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific features >>>>>>> of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a >>>>>> group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a phone >>>>> number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a >>>> message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the group >>>> were all enlisted by phone number, however.
If a user sends an SMS message, he can only send it to a phone number.
There is no phone number which will address the whole group. So what did >>> I miss here?
I'd have to revisit it, but I do recall chats where a reply from SMS
users appeared on two or more iPhones.
Again: SMS is only to a phone number.
On 2024-03-05 14:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-04 15:31:
On 2024-03-02 16:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-02 15:00:
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific >>>>>>>> features
of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a >>>>>>> group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a >>>>>> phone
number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a >>>>> message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the
group
were all enlisted by phone number, however.
If a user sends an SMS message, he can only send it to a phone number. >>>> There is no phone number which will address the whole group. So what
did
I miss here?
I'd have to revisit it, but I do recall chats where a reply from SMS
users appeared on two or more iPhones.
Again: SMS is only to a phone number.
It's not like I don't understand that. I just recall being on text
groups where the SMS user remained in the loop over multiple replies.
Maybe I missed something.
On 2024-03-05 20:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 14:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-04 15:31:
On 2024-03-02 16:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan Browne, 2024-03-02 15:00:
On 2024-03-01 07:19, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan Browne, 2024-02-27 01:02:
How to join group conversions or use any of the other specific >>>>>>>>> features
of iMessage without using iMessage?
Hard to "join", but if the SMS-er(s) is(are) on the first list of a >>>>>>>> group, then no big issue. Not elegant, mind you.
Not "hard" - impossible. With SMS you can only send a message to a >>>>>>> phone
number, not to a messenger group.
Look at it the other way around. If a group copies an SMS user with a >>>>>> message, his replies will go back to the group. This assumes the >>>>>> group
were all enlisted by phone number, however.
If a user sends an SMS message, he can only send it to a phone number. >>>>> There is no phone number which will address the whole group. So what >>>>> did
I miss here?
I'd have to revisit it, but I do recall chats where a reply from SMS
users appeared on two or more iPhones.
Again: SMS is only to a phone number.
It's not like I don't understand that. I just recall being on text
groups where the SMS user remained in the loop over multiple replies.
Maybe I missed something.
The software has to internally keep track of all recipients, and send an
SMS to all, ie, multiple SMS with some tracking information.
Another method would be to send an SMS to a master phone in the list,
which then forwards to the rest.
I have seen group messaging with SMS, it can be done. The SMS first
appeared in my phone as a message from one of the members, and seconds
later appeared in the group.
With RCS, it is supported.
W Wed, 6 Mar 2024 20:03:26 +0100, Arno Welzel napisal:
With RCS, it is supported.
Yes, but RCS is not SMS.
RCS isn't supported in this app, but is the group SMS message supported?
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
On 2024-03-07 12:48, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jan K., 2024-03-07 05:44:
W Wed, 6 Mar 2024 20:03:26 +0100, Arno Welzel napisal:
With RCS, it is supported.
Yes, but RCS is not SMS.
RCS isn't supported in this app, but is the group SMS message supported? >>> <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
There is no "group SMS" - it is just a SMS message to multiple numbers.
Depending on the SMS app you can of course you can create "groups" which
just contain multiple recipients for your message. But everybody will
still just get a single message by you and can not see if the SMS
message was sent to other people as well.
The recipient of the SMS sent to the group can reply to the group.
However it works, it does work.
Carlos E.R., 2024-03-07 13:23:
On 2024-03-07 12:48, Arno Welzel wrote:
Jan K., 2024-03-07 05:44:
W Wed, 6 Mar 2024 20:03:26 +0100, Arno Welzel napisal:
With RCS, it is supported.
Yes, but RCS is not SMS.
RCS isn't supported in this app, but is the group SMS message supported? >>>> <https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>
There is no "group SMS" - it is just a SMS message to multiple numbers.
Depending on the SMS app you can of course you can create "groups" which >>> just contain multiple recipients for your message. But everybody will
still just get a single message by you and can not see if the SMS
message was sent to other people as well.
The recipient of the SMS sent to the group can reply to the group.
However it works, it does work.
So - if an user get's an SMS(!) from an iMessage group - what number is
then used as the "Sender" number?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 915 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 239:46:56 |
| Calls: | 12,163 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 186,518 |
| Messages: | 2,232,782 |