"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> asked
> On non-RCS-Androids, SMS is not a backup to RCS, as there is no RCS.

Hi Carlos,

I'm confused (bear in mind I never thought about RCS until recently).

Isn't RCS on _all_ Android phones at this very moment if the user wants it?

It's not just Google/Samsung I thought from reading the articles.

Anyone who wants it can just download a free messaging app with it.

Can't they?

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> asked
> iMsg is by far the messenger of minimal distrust among the closed source
> messengers.

You do realize iMessage iCloud backups are read by Apple any time they want.
Don't you?

In article <sk83el$tti$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> You do realize iMessage iCloud backups are read by Apple any time they want.

very much false, and icloud backups are optional anyway.

Alan <nope@nope.com> asked
> How does Apple primarily make its money?

You do know that Apple _sells_ your use data to advertisers, don't you?
--
*Is Apple really better about privacy?*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/04/17/apple-make-simpler-download-your-privacy-data-year/521786002/>

"The company admits that Apple freely collects information about what
music we listen to, what movies, books and apps we download"

"Apple sells ads based on that history in its News app and App Store."

On 2021-10-13 7:08 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> asked
>> iMsg is by far the messenger of minimal distrust among the closed source
>> messengers.
>
> You do realize iMessage iCloud backups are read by Apple any time they want.
> Don't you?
>

Only if you use iCloud Backup...

....which you don't have to.

On 2021-10-13 7:10 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> asked
>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>
> You do know that Apple _sells_ your use data to advertisers, don't you?
>

Cite, please!

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>
> not when facts show it to be true.

Nobody defends Google or Microsoft like apologists defend Apple.
And yet, Apple fucks the customer every chance Apple gets.

Apple first blames everyone but Apple for each time Apple fucks you.
Then Apple tells you that fucking you is "good for you."

Look at this recent Apple marketing campaign which debuted today!
*Apple is making its latest case against sideloading*
<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>

1. First they blame Android for Apple's anti-competitive behavior,
2. And then they tell you that fucking you is good for you after all.

Happens every time with Apple's evil marketing tactics.
1. Apple fucked you by throttling (saying throttling is good for you).
2. Apple fucked you by removing chargers (saying it's good for the environment)
3. Apple fucked customers by removing aux jacks (saying it's a courageous decision).

Nobody fucks the customer more than Apple does.
But only Apple customers _believe_ that being fucked is "good for them."
--
Apple apologists even gloat over how much profit Apple makes off them!

On 2021-10-13 7:17 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>>
>> not when facts show it to be true.
>
> Nobody defends Google or Microsoft like apologists defend Apple.
> And yet, Apple fucks the customer every chance Apple gets.

Carlos just defended them.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> On 14/10/2021 01.41, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-10-13 3:39 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>> On 13/10/2021 11.31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>> *LOL*
>>>>>>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has
>>>>>>>> SMS/MMS as
>>>>>>>> backup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my
>>>>>> communication
>>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than Facebook
>>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>>
>>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>>> how naive people can be ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>> other company?

> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.

Nope. it just means the individual dislikes one company.

That individual may or may not have good reasons for doing that.

> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the
> other, and that I don't talk bad of the other. That in fact
> I have called to task people talking bad of the other.

Irrelevant to what a fanboy is.

> Thus claiming that I'm a fanboy indicates
> that he is a fanboy himself.

Nope, just that he believes you are a fanboy.

He may or may not be correct. If your statement
above is accurate, you aren't a fanboy.

>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>
>> How does Google?
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> Not interested.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> On 2021-10-13 4:54 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 01.41, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-13 3:39 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 11.31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *LOL*
>>>>>>>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has
>>>>>>>>> SMS/MMS as
>>>>>>>>> backup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my
>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than
>>>>>>> Facebook
>>>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>>>> how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>>> other company?
>>
>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>
> He didn't do that.
>
> He offered no opinion about Apple's good/evil status.
>
>>
>> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the other, and that I
>> don't talk bad of the other. That in fact I have called to task people
>> talking bad of the other.
>>
>> Thus claiming that I'm a fanboy indicates that he is a fanboy himself.
>
> I'd say that "LOL!"ing at the fact (yes: fact) that Google acts in ways we
> call consider "evil" with respect to basic privacy qualifies you as a
> fanboy.

No it does not.

>>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>>
>>> How does Google?
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> Not interested.
>
> Of course not.
>
> You might actually learn something.

Unlikely in his case.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> On 2021-10-13 4:58 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> On 2021-10-13 3:39 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 11.31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *LOL*
>>>>>>>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has
>>>>>>>>> SMS/MMS as
>>>>>>>>> backup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my
>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than
>>>>>>> Facebook
>>>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>>>> how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>>> other company?
>>
>>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>
>> By selling hardware.
>>
>> They also sell services.
>
> Right.
>
> And a key differentiator for Apple is that they can offer greater privacy,
> because they don't NEED to sell out your privacy.
>
>>
>>> How does Google?
>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> No way.

> Why not?

That was a joke, Joyce.

> 'How we make money

> Our advertising products deliver relevant ads at just the right time, to
> give people useful commercial information, regardless of the device they’re
> using. We also provide advertisers with tools that help them better
> attribute and measure their advertising campaigns. Our advertising
> solutions help millions of companies grow their businesses, and we offer a
> wide range of products across devices and formats. Google Services
> generates revenues primarily by delivering both performance advertising
> and brand advertising.
>
> •Performance advertising creates and delivers relevant ads that users will
> click on, leading to direct engagement with advertisers. Most of our
> performance advertisers pay us when a user engages in their ads.
> Performance advertising lets our advertisers connect with users while
> driving measurable results. Our ads tools allow performance advertisers to
> create simple text-based ads that appear on Google Search & other
> properties, YouTube and the properties of Google Network Members. In
> addition, Google Network Members use our platforms to display relevant ads
> on their properties, generating revenues when site visitors view or click
> on the ads. We continue to invest in our advertising programs and make
> significant upgrades.'
>
> <https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204421000010/goog-20201231.htm>
>
> For the latest year possible:
>
> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-segment/
>
> More than 80% of Google's revenue comes from advertising.

They also make money selling hardware. But that is certainly far less than
the other source of their money.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> You do realize iMessage iCloud backups are read by Apple any time they want.
>
> very much false, and icloud backups are optional anyway.

*Only ignorant apologists could brazenly deny what even Apple doesn't dispute.*

"There's always been one major problem with Apple's privacy claim that
'What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone':
it isn't true of iCloud backups."
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/21/icloud-backups/>

On 2021-10-13 8:57 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> You do realize iMessage iCloud backups are read by Apple any time they want.
>>
>> very much false, and icloud backups are optional anyway.
>
> *Only ignorant apologists could brazenly deny what even Apple doesn't dispute.*

He didn't deny that Apple CAN read iCloud backups of your messages...

He denied that they "are read".

>
> "There's always been one major problem with Apple's privacy claim that
> 'What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone':
> it isn't true of iCloud backups."
> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/21/icloud-backups/>
>

Am 14.10.21 um 01:41 schrieb Alan:
> On 2021-10-13 3:39 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 11.31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> *LOL*
>>>>>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has SMS/MMS as
>>>>>>> backup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my communication
>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than Facebook
>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>
>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>> how naive people can be ...
>>
>>
>
> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
> other company?
>
> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>
> How does Google?

These are the relevant questions.
Google is evil. The European Authorities fined this evil company in more
than half a dozen cases for breaching the laws. The fines amounted to
billions. Euros not Dollars.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 14.10.21 um 00:39 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>
> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
> how naive people can be ...

I'm a huge fan-boy of American tech giants ...
*ROTFLSTC*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 14.10.21 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 14/10/2021 01.41, Alan wrote:
>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>> other company?
>
> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>
> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the other, and that I
> don't talk bad of the other. That in fact I have called to task people
> talking bad of the other.

You understand exactly nothing.

I use both platforms for years and I think I know what I'm talking
about. Both do nothing to become fan-boy. Because I don't like Google
I'm Apple-fan-boy? Your world is extremely simple.

>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>
>> How does Google?
>>
>> Discuss.
>
> Not interested.

No arguments? You are naive.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 14.10.21 um 02:02 schrieb Alan:
> On 2021-10-13 4:54 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 01.41, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-13 3:39 p.m., Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 15.49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 13:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 11.31, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *LOL*
>>>>>>>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has
>>>>>>>>> SMS/MMS as
>>>>>>>>> backup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my communication
>>>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than Facebook
>>>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>>>> how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>>> other company?
>>
>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>
> He didn't do that.
>
> He offered no opinion about Apple's good/evil status.
>
>>
>> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the other, and that I
>> don't talk bad of the other. That in fact I have called to task people
>> talking bad of the other.
>>
>> Thus claiming that I'm a fanboy indicates that he is a fanboy himself.
>
> I'd say that "LOL!"ing at the fact (yes: fact) that Google acts in ways
> we call consider "evil" with respect to basic privacy qualifies you as a
> fanboy.

+1

>>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>>
>>> How does Google?
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> Not interested.
>
> Of course not.
>
> You might actually learn something.

He does everything to avoid that.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 14/10/2021 00:41, Alan wrote:
>
[This is a nym-shift of Alan half-Baked]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/10/2021 02.01, nospam wrote:
> In article <m68k3ixqoi.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> What I want to add: I do not want Google be a part of my communication
>>>>>>> even not as a relay. This company is evil. Even more so than Facebook
>>>>>>> and all related companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you a fan-boy of Google and Facebook?
>>>>> Seems so. Sometimes it amazes me how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>> I am not. But you obviously are an Apple fanboy. Sometimes it amazes me
>>>> how naive people can be ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>>> other company?
>>
>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>
> not when facts show it to be true.
>
>> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the other, and that I
>> don't talk bad of the other.
>
> your posts show otherwise.

You are forgetting the conversations with you were I defended Apple.

>
>> That in fact I have called to task people
>> talking bad of the other.
>
> by calling them a fanboi?

Certainly.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/10/2021 08.37, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 14.10.21 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 14/10/2021 01.41, Alan wrote:
>>> How does pointing out that Google is evil make anyone a fanboy of any
>>> other company?
>>
>> Claiming that one company is evil and the other is not, does.
>>
>> Anyone that knows me, knows that I use one and not the other, and that I
>> don't talk bad of the other. That in fact I have called to task people
>> talking bad of the other.
>
> You understand exactly nothing.
>
> I use both platforms for years and I think I know what I'm talking
> about. Both do nothing to become fan-boy. Because I don't like Google
> I'm Apple-fan-boy? Your world is extremely simple.
>
>>> How does Apple primarily make its money?
>>>
>>> How does Google?
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>
>> Not interested.
>
> No arguments? You are naive.

I have arguments. I'm just not interested in discussing which is best,
mama or papa. I'm not a fanboi, I don't care...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 13/10/2021 10.02, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 13.10.21 um 09:40 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 13/10/2021 09.01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 13.10.21 um 07:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 07.16, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> That applies also to non-RCS-Androids and iPhones.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> On non-RCS-Androids, SMS is not a backup to RCS, as there is no RCS.
>>>> There is SMS, but it is not the backup of anything. It is THE service.
>>>>
>>>> There is of course Whatsap, Signal, Telegram... but then again, SMS is
>>>> not the backup to those services, but a different service with a
>>>> different application.
>>>
>>> *LOL*
>>> That is exactely the reason why iMsg is superior: It also has SMS/MMS as
>>> backup.
>>
>> And is restricted inside a walled garden. Thus, useless.
>
> You state is a fact but it is simply a personal opinion.
>
> All these ways of communication like WhatsApp, Telegram etc. that are
> closed source are absolutely useless as well and thy cannot be trusted
> at all.

Closed source but open garden.

And telegram is in fact open source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)

But you are moving the goalposts.

>
> iMsg is by far the messenger of minimal distrust among the closed source
> messengers.

But it is useless to us.

>
> The only messenger that can be trusted is Signal.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/10/2021 00.55, Rod Speed wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>> On 13/10/2021 17.08, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
>>>>
>>>> *Rich Communication Services*
>>> [lots deleted]
>>>
>>>   As Rob also mentioned, RCS uses *an* *IP* network, not the IP part of
>>> a normal TCP/IP 'Internet' network. I.e. much like VoIP and (AFAIK)
>>> VoLTE [1].
>>>
>>>   As has been described, RCS is part of the voice/SMS/MMS part of the
>>> services, not part of the 'Internet'/'mobile data' part of the services.
>>
>> Problem is, using that network is charged per use,
>
> Only in theory. In reality most plans that most use
> have unlimited calls and texts and MMS now. Some
> have unlimited data too.

I don't.

>
>> thus not interesting.
>
> To you, maybe, but not to everyone.

Millions of Europeans may not agree...

>
> Yes, the real problem with RCS is that it isn't universally
> supported by phones and service providers.

«In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88
operators in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per
month.[6]»

The current problem is Apple.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/10/2021 04.07, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> asked
>> On non-RCS-Androids, SMS is not a backup to RCS, as there is no RCS.

(It was Joerg Lorenz who mentioned non-RCS-Androids, not me)

>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I'm confused (bear in mind I never thought about RCS until recently).
>
> Isn't RCS on _all_ Android phones at this very moment if the user wants it?

Possibly, I don't know for sure.

>
> It's not just Google/Samsung I thought from reading the articles.
>
> Anyone who wants it can just download a free messaging app with it.
>
> Can't they?

I suppose so, but I can't vouch for it.

There may be out there old phones that are not capable. Or obscure brands.

Hey, I have one running Android 2.2! X'-)

No, I don't use it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. wrote:

> Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>
>> Isn't RCS on _all_ Android phones at this very moment if the user wants it?
>
> Possibly, I don't know for sure.

It's on my Pixel3, they've had a couple of attempts to turn it on by
stealth/confusion of the end user ...

in the "Messages" app, under Settings, Chat Features, it's the option to "enable
chat features: use wifi or data for messaging when available"

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-13 8:08 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2021 23.08, nospam wrote:
> >>> In article <8o8h3ixadc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> >>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> And why would Apple want to help Google harvest more customer data?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because then I could message you, for instance. Now I can not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Be careful when responding to these clowns. By not debunking his BS,
> >>>>>> you implicitly gave the impression that RCS allows Google to harvest
> >>>>>> customer data, which is scare-mongering nonsense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's very much reality. google's entire business model is to harvest
> >>>>> customer data and sell ads based on it. thinking that rcs is the lone
> >>>>> exception is obliviousness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are things that google does and things that they don't.
> >>>
> >>> zen.
> >>>
> >>>> Looking
> >>>> inside messages if they say the don't is not something they do.
> >>>
> >>> that depends how it's worded and what's not said.
> >>>
> >>>> And
> >>>> AFAIK they say that RCS is encrypted end to end in a manner that even
> >>>> "we google" can not read.
> >>>
> >>> rcs is e2e between individuals if both sides are rcs. sms fallback and
> >>> group chats are not encrypted. in all cases, the metadata, such as with
> >>> whom you message and how often, is available and mineable. that, along
> >>> with other collected data, paints a very accurate picture and marketed
> >>> to advertisers.
> >>
> >> I doubt it can be mineable and sold in the EU. Probably illegal.
> >
> > There's no indication - let alone proof - that anything *can* be
> > mined, i.e. is "mineable".
> >
> > The likes of (attribution-snipped Alan Baker and) nospam try to let
> > others fall for this kind of (non-)'reasoning:
> >
> > RCS -> Google is 'involved' in RCS -> Google is bad -> Google mines
> > data -> Google is 'involved' in RCS -> 'so' Google mines data from RCS
> > use.
>
> 'Chat features by Google uses Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption
> to protect your messages. This means that anyone trying to intercept
> your messages between you and Google would only be able to see
> encrypted, unreadable text.'

This - and the below - describes what happens when Google is the RCS
provider. If you have another RCS provider, Google is not in the
picture.

I.e. this is just like any other means of communication - IM, e-mail,
etc. - the provider gets to see the metadata (and if there's no
end-to-end encryption, it gets to see the data).

This whole (non-)discussion is rather pointless, because 1) there's
hardly any rollout yet of RCS and 2) RCS does not yet have end-to-end
encryption.

> <https://support.google.com/messages/answer/9592174?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-we-protect-your-data>
>
> Encrypted between you and Google... ...not AT Google.
>
> 'Although RCS Chat is not (yet) end-to-end encrypted, there is at least
> one small piece of good news in how Google has implemented it. Rowny
> says that the company doesn?t keep any of the messages that pass through
> its servers
>
> ?From a data retention point of view, we delete the message from our RCS
> backend service the moment we deliver it to an end user,? he explains,
> adding ?If we keep it, it?s just to deliver it when that person comes
> online.?'
>
> <https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18681573/google-rcs-chat-android-texting-carriers-imessage-encryption>
>
> But that doesn't mean they cannot keep the information they learned from
> reading the message.
>
> >
> > Of course they will continue their endless footstamping. That's all
> > they ever do/have, no substance.
>
> Whereas with Apple's iMessage service, if you want it to be unavailable
> to Apple ever, you can have it that way (turn off iCloud backups and
> back up locally).

FWIW, not that I care, but if I cared, turning off iCloud backups
would probably not be an acceptable solution for me, i.e. I would want
to have both features, not just one of them.