Am 18.03.22 um 22:54 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2022-03-17 01:07, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 16.03.22 um 22:46 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> Well, if my plumber, my insurance company, everybody, uses whatsap and
>>> expect me and everybody else to use whatsapp, I have no choice in the
>>> matter - if I want to have my water mains repaired. I can choose not to
>>> repair it and buy bottles of water at the supermarket instead.
>>
>> Difficult to believe. I have never ever seen professional companies
>> using such an unprofessional tool to do business.
>
> LOL.

WhatsApp and other messengers are not an universally accepted way to
close contracts and do business. It is as simple as that.

And btw: WA is forbidden here in schools, universities, the armed
forces, law enforcement, public service companies, banks and insurance
companies for official communication because it is not secure and
private enough. That applies to all messengers.

Nobody cares whether you communicate with your plumber using WA.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 3/18/2022 3:04 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2022-03-17 17:25, AJL wrote:

>> My docs handle appointments over email but for any medical stuff
>> like test results I'm instructed to sign in to my account on their
>> "secure" webpage to get the info...

> Yeah, me too, but if I have to ask something about the report to a
> doctor we would use plain unencrypted mail which could include talk
> about "sensitive" items in the report. We could use WhatsApp, which
> is somewhat safer than plain email.

In my case even written questions to my doctors have to be asked on
their websites. They then notify me by email when the answer is
available to be viewed on the website...

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 22:22:32 +0100, Piet wrote:

> The last thing people who avoid whatsapp like the plague would do
> is visit whatsapp's website.

<https://www.torproject.org/download/>

?

--
s|b

On 2022-03-18 23:35, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 18.03.22 um 22:54 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2022-03-17 01:07, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 16.03.22 um 22:46 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> Well, if my plumber, my insurance company, everybody, uses whatsap and
>>>> expect me and everybody else to use whatsapp, I have no choice in the
>>>> matter - if I want to have my water mains repaired. I can choose not to
>>>> repair it and buy bottles of water at the supermarket instead.
>>>
>>> Difficult to believe. I have never ever seen professional companies
>>> using such an unprofessional tool to do business.
>>
>> LOL.
>
> WhatsApp and other messengers are not an universally accepted way to
> close contracts and do business. It is as simple as that.
>
> And btw: WA is forbidden here in schools, universities, the armed
> forces, law enforcement, public service companies, banks and insurance
> companies for official communication because it is not secure and
> private enough.

Ah, Switzerland. Yes, I know, but the reason is another. That the
servers are controlled by the USA, and can be forced by the USA
administration to give access to them, even if they are physically in
Europe but belong to a USA company (Cloud Act).

> That applies to all messengers.

Except Threema.

>
> Nobody cares whether you communicate with your plumber using WA.

Nobody cares what Switzerland does :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-03-19 05:19, AJL wrote:
> On 3/18/2022 3:04 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2022-03-17 17:25, AJL wrote:
>
>>> My docs handle appointments over email but for any medical stuff
>>> like test results I'm instructed to sign in to my account on their
>>> "secure" webpage to get the info...
>
>> Yeah, me too, but if I have to ask something about the report to a
>> doctor we would use plain unencrypted mail which could include talk
>> about "sensitive" items in the report. We could use WhatsApp, which
>> is somewhat safer than plain email.
>
> In my case even written questions to my doctors have to be asked on
> their websites. They then notify me by email when the answer is
> available to be viewed on the website...

Yep.

It is funny that nobody seems to use encrypted email.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> It is funny that nobody seems to use encrypted email.

I use protonmail (among others).
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfqZkHSN/telecom01.jpg>

Does Proton Mail count as encrypted email?

On 2022-03-20 01:12, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> It is funny that nobody seems to use encrypted email.
>
> I use protonmail (among others).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/DfqZkHSN/telecom01.jpg>
>
> Does Proton Mail count as encrypted email?

Not really.

Encrypted email has to be encrypted end to end, you need both ends to
cooperate. The service provider is mostly irrelevant.

Yes, transport to Protonmail may be encrypted, but so is gmail, too.

By the way, creating an account at Protonmail nowdays demands you
provide a phone. They claim to use it only once, and not register it,
but still, they do demand a phone. They send a code to it, which then
you type in the creation form.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <c5njgi-rue.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> By the way, creating an account at Protonmail nowdays demands you
> provide a phone. They claim to use it only once, and not register it,
> but still, they do demand a phone. They send a code to it, which then
> you type in the creation form.

not always.

<https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/human-verification/>
In order to prevent the creation of accounts by spam bots or human
spammers, ProtonMail uses a variety of human verification methods.
You may be asked to verify using either CAPTCHA, Email, or SMS.
We have an intelligent algorithm that determines the required
verification method based on a number of factors.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> By the way, creating an account at Protonmail nowdays demands you
> provide a phone. They claim to use it only once, and not register it,
> but still, they do demand a phone. They send a code to it, which then
> you type in the creation form.

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your purposefully helpful information about verification.

I have old and new protonmail email accounts where they used to never ask,
and now "sometimes" they ask (depending on my VPN server & browser).

What I find _least_ intrusive when setting up protonmain accounts is to use
a "regular" browser (e.g., not a "privacy" browser) and a USA VPN.

What I've also found, by experience, is that the USA VPN has to be one of
the lessor known (usually dynamic) ones as they're on to the well-known
static VPNs.

Also what works sometimes is a 2nd-line app, which is why you see them on my
phone, since I use them and then delete the account after the verification.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y9fDQRCk/telecom02.jpg>

But you _are_ right that sometimes protonmail is pushy with your privacy.
Plus the free version is limited to some number of messages per day.

That's the biggest advantage of Google.
Every two years or so I have to clean it out as it fills up.

But for me the GMail quota lasts for around two years at least.
What I need now is to replace K9 mail with something that does OAUth2.

But no matter what I replace K9 with, there are privacy issues:
a. OAUth2 is locked to the host (according to VanguardLH)
b. app passwords are locked to the 2FA/2SV setup
c. password tokens are also locked to the 2FA/2SV setup
(that is, if you remove the 2FA/2SV, they both instantly die)

Hence the question is which is the least worst in terms of loss of privacy.
A. OAuth2 is set to a unique host which Google clearly will track
B. 2FA/2SV is also a privacy nightmare which Google will track

The question is which is the least invasive in terms of privacy?
--
Note that I'm well aware privacy is different from security.
I personally don't care about email security above the login/password level.
But I care greatly about my privacy, particularly when dealing with Google.

nospam wrote:

> <https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/human-verification/>
> In order to prevent the creation of accounts by spam bots or human
> spammers, ProtonMail uses a variety of human verification methods.
> You may be asked to verify using either CAPTCHA, Email, or SMS.
> We have an intelligent algorithm that determines the required
> verification method based on a number of factors.

Hi nospam,

You are correct that protonmail doesn't always ask for verification.
But right now we're having to make a change based on Google Accounts.

It's my understanding that, after May 30th, we have only three options for a
non-Google 3rd-party MUA if we want to have a Google Account for our email.
1. We can find a good MUA that handles the Google OAuth2 "framework"
2. We can set up app passwords using 2FA/2SV (same thing to Google)
3. We can set up auth-tokens (which also requires 2FA/2SV with Google)

The question is which is the least worst in terms of loss of privacy.
A. OAuth2 is set to a unique host which Google clearly will track
B. 2FA/2SV is also a privacy nightmare which Google will track

The question is which is the least invasive in terms of privacy?
--
Note that I'm well aware privacy is different from security.
I personally don't care about email security above the login/password level.
But I care greatly about my privacy, particularly when dealing with Google.