On 3/1/2023 4:53 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-28 18:34, sms wrote:
>> On 2/28/2023 6:21 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>>> What's a "Secure Folder"?

>> For Samsung it's a folder where you can place apps and date that
>> you want to require biometric or passcode/pattern protection even
>> when the phone is unlocked. You'd want this for banking, shopping,
>> social media, etc.. "Folder" is a bit of a misnomer since it
>> implies that it's only to store files securely.

> Ah, a folder on the desktop, in computer parlance.

It's a bit darker than that.

The Secure Folder app is generally kept in the app drawer. It can be
camouflaged in both name and icon in an attempt to keep even its
presence from being discovered. It requires a pin or finger to open. Its
purpose is to conceal and secure sensitive apps and files from folks who
have access to your phone either by permission or otherwise...

> It doesn't seem I can create any "empty" folder in the screen of my
> motorola g52. I have to create them by joining to icons, and then I
> don't have access to folder properties, only rename.

The Secure Folder app only works on Samsung phones and requires being
signed into a Samsung account. So it's not for everyone...in more ways
than one...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:59:11 -0500, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <mihvcjxhk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
>> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
>
> it's extremely rare, nowhere near enough to bother supporting when
> there are *far* more useful features to implement, ones that many
> people will actually use, including satellite sos, continuity camera,
> universal control, safety check, tap to pay, centerstage, magsafe, find
> my iphone when powered off, precision finding, all of which android
> lacks.

You are ignoring the bigger part of the world where people can't
afford to buy a phone for every family member.

Satellite SOS? Utter luxury for wealthy globe trotters.

--
Kees Nuyt

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:58:39 -0800, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> nospam must be referring to something
> else, or he is wrong again.

Then he must be referring to something else, because we all
know, "nospam is always right"
--
Kees Nuyt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Equines

In article <kbuuvhlce99b9s553e4os5krnboe5le9k0@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:

> >
> >> I did lent a phone to a guest, and I have friends in the auntie
> >> situation. So, no, you are wrong.
> >
> > it's extremely rare, nowhere near enough to bother supporting when
> > there are *far* more useful features to implement, ones that many
> > people will actually use, including satellite sos, continuity camera,
> > universal control, safety check, tap to pay, centerstage, magsafe, find
> > my iphone when powered off, precision finding, all of which android
> > lacks.
>
> You are ignoring the bigger part of the world where people can't
> afford to buy a phone for every family member.

if they can't afford to buy a phone for every family member, they're
not going to be buying very many iphones. instead, they'll buy cheapo
android phones.

> Satellite SOS? Utter luxury for wealthy globe trotters.

nope. there are plenty of areas where there's little to no cell
coverage, without needing to travel the globe.

but even ignoring that, satellite sos saves lives (and in fact, did
exactly that just days after the iphone 14 launch). multi-user is
merely a convenience.

On 3/1/2023 6:53 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Ah, a folder on the desktop, in computer parlance. It doesn't seem I can
> create any "empty" folder in the screen of my motorola g52. I have to
> create them by joining to icons, and then I don't have access to folder
> properties, only rename.

The Samsung & Apple methods require you to always worry the big company
will (for whatever reason) disable your account and that's never a good way
to secure critical documents because it irrevocability inserts a large
multinational company in the path to your own personal private data.

If it requires you to wait outside the locked doors of a big company in
Cupertino or Korea to get back your own data, then it's not a solution.

If you want a homescreen folder for documents, why not use a Veracrypt
analog? If you want a homescreen folder of secured apps, why not put them
in a folder and then use any of the applock apps to secure them?

As for the empty folder, some launchers allow it and others don't.

Whether they allow you to directly create an empty folder or not, all
launchers will allow you to create a folder by sliding two icons on top of
each other and then removing them. Some will try to guess that you wanted
the folder gone but other launchers will leave the empty folder.

For those launchers that guess you want them to delete the empty folder
that resulted, you have to put in an invisible icon to keep it there.

On 3/1/2023 10:16 AM, AJL wrote:

> The Secure Folder app only works on Samsung phones and requires being
> signed into a Samsung account.

It needs to be made abundantly clear that AJL is correct that a security
concept which requires an account to a large impersonal company isn't ever
going to be a good way to store your private sensitive data (except for
that big company - but not for you).

The google document must list which "solutions" require this corporate
account. And it must list the methods to get your information back from
them when something goes wrong.

Otherwise it's just bad advice.

nospam wrote:

> but even ignoring that, satellite sos saves lives (and in fact, did
> exactly that just days after the iphone 14 launch). multi-user is
> merely a convenience.

Your claim that simple short almost meaningless text messages over
satellite (hlpme!) is "required" by the vast majority is absurd.

At absolute best, it's useful as a one-time-use emergency backup for those
with money who can afford the helo pickup costs, at worst, it's yet another
marketing gimmick that you fell for, nospam... hook... line... & sinker.

Apple is a predator in that Apple preys on fear and fear alone. For profit.

On 2023-03-01 11:04, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> but even ignoring that, satellite sos saves lives (and in fact, did
>> exactly that just days after the iphone 14 launch). multi-user is
>> merely a convenience.
>
> Your claim that simple short almost meaningless text messages over
> satellite (hlpme!) is "required" by the vast majority is absurd.
>
> At absolute best, it's useful as a one-time-use emergency backup for those
> with money who can afford the helo pickup costs, at worst, it's yet another
> marketing gimmick that you fell for, nospam... hook... line... & sinker.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who NEEDS to use the feature WILL use the
feature regardless of what the rescue subsequently COSTS...

....you incredible simpleton.

On 2/28/2023 6:12 PM, Big Dog wrote:

<snip>

> Then you won't need to log into Google, Apple or Samsung to create the
> encrypted folder, and to store and retrieve your data on any platform.

Fine for files, but it doesn't work for apps. The goal is to have an
extra layer of security for sensitive apps so just because the screen is
unlocked it doesn't mean that the app can be launched. Like Apple
Pay--you can't pay with Apple Pay even if the phone is unlocked unless
you use FaceID or a PIN or use an Apple Watch to unlock Apple Pay. As it
is now, you could buy things on Amazon or eBay, etc., if the phone
screen is unlocked.

On 2/28/2023 9:10 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 2/27/2023 8:58 PM, sms wrote:
>
>> This is not the same thing as being able to individually password
>> protect specific applications.
>
> If you think that an app which requires an account to protect your
> sensitive data or your apps is useful, then you don't understand it.
>
> No app which holds your sensitive data or encryption passwords should EVER
> require an account which can and may stand in the way of your own data.

That's not how the app lock apps work.

On 3/1/2023 10:42 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 3/1/2023 6:53 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Ah, a folder on the desktop, in computer parlance. It doesn't seem I
>> can create any "empty" folder in the screen of my motorola g52. I have
>> to create them by joining to icons, and then I don't have access to
>> folder properties, only rename.
>
> The Samsung & Apple methods require you to always worry the big company
> will (for whatever reason) disable your account and that's never a good way
> to secure critical documents because it irrevocability inserts a large
> multinational company in the path to your own personal private data.

That's not how it works on Samsung devices. You would only need Samsung
if you forgot your password.

On 3/1/2023 10:50 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 3/1/2023 10:16 AM, AJL wrote:
>
>> The Secure Folder app only works on Samsung phones and requires being
>> signed into a Samsung account.
>
> It needs to be made abundantly clear that AJL is correct that a security
> concept which requires an account to a large impersonal company isn't ever
> going to be a good way to store your private sensitive data (except for
> that big company - but not for you).

He is not correct.

That's not how it works. You only need to access a Samsung account onlne
if you've forgotten the PIN, pattern or password for your Secure Folder
since it can by reset by using your Samsung account.

On 3/1/2023 4:17 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/1/2023 10:50 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 3/1/2023 10:16 AM, AJL wrote:

>>> The Secure Folder app only works on Samsung phones and requires
>>> being signed into a Samsung account.

>> It needs to be made abundantly clear that AJL is correct that a
>> security concept which requires an account to a large impersonal
>> company isn't ever going to be a good way to store your private
>> sensitive data (except for that big company - but not for you).

> He is not correct.

> That's not how it works. You only need to access a Samsung account
> onlne if you've forgotten the PIN, pattern or password for your
> Secure Folder since it can by reset by using your Samsung account.

"Before you do anything else, you’ll need a Samsung account to set up
and use Samsung Secure Folder."

https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-secure-folder-908758/

On 3/1/2023 5:45 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> "Before you do anything else, you’ll need a Samsung account to set up
> and use Samsung Secure Folder."

That's correct. You need the Samsung account in case you forget your
pass code or pattern or if the biometrics don't work. But that's all you
need it for.

Once you create the Samsung account everything takes place only on the
phone, nothing is uploaded to the Samsung account and Samsung can't
access anything on your phone, whether in the secure folder or not.

On 3/1/2023 7:44 PM, sms wrote:
> On 3/1/2023 5:45 PM, AJL wrote:

> <snip>

Unsnip: AJL wrote:

The Secure Folder app only works on Samsung phones and requires
being signed into a Samsung account.

Unsnip: SMS wrote:

He is not correct.

>> "Before you do anything else, you’ll need a Samsung account to set
>> up and use Samsung Secure Folder."

Unsnip source:
<https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-secure-folder-908758/>

> That's correct. You need the Samsung account in case you forget your
> pass code or pattern or if the biometrics don't work. But that's all
> you need it for.

> Once you create the Samsung account

Yup. Gotta have a Samsung Account to make Secure Folder work just like I
(and the link) said.

> everything takes place only on the phone, nothing is uploaded to the
> Samsung account

Guess you forgot about the voluntary Backup and Restore feature. And
auto-backup to the cloud every 24 hours. Course you gotta be signed in
(gasp) to use it. (It's also on the above snipped/restored link.)

> and Samsung can't access anything on your phone, whether in the
> secure folder or not.

Apparently it can. Question is does it...

Anyway I think we're probably boring the iPhone folks with our Android
talk so this will be EOD for me in this group...

On 3/2/2023 5:20 AM, AJL wrote:

>> Once you create the Samsung account
>
> Yup. Gotta have a Samsung Account to make Secure Folder work just like I
> (and the link) said.

I don't think the guy with the document understands depending on a large
corporate account for your data has always been a bad model (for you, not
for the large corporation).

>> everything takes place only on the phone, nothing is uploaded to the
>> Samsung account
>
> Guess you forgot about the voluntary Backup and Restore feature. And
> auto-backup to the cloud every 24 hours. Course you gotta be signed in
> (gasp) to use it. (It's also on the above snipped/restored link.)

There are big problems everywhere you look when you depend on a large
overseas corporation for a corporate account for your important data.

>> and Samsung can't access anything on your phone, whether in the
>> secure folder or not.
>
> Apparently it can. Question is does it...

I don't think the author of the google document understands the issues.

If you have to depend on the large overseas impersonal corporation when you
forget your personal pin or passcode, then it's a bad model for you (it's a
great model for the impersonal corporation though - which is why they
designed it for you to depend on them to reset your personal password).

> Anyway I think we're probably boring the iPhone folks with our Android
> talk so this will be EOD for me in this group...

It affects the Apple solutions also. The common advice to never depend on a
large corporation (even if in Cupertino) for your personal data holds true.

The google document must list which "solutions" require this impersonal
large (often overseas) corporate account. And that google document must
list the methods to get your information back from them when something goes
wrong.

Otherwise the google document contains very bad advice.

On 3/1/2023 6:14 PM, sms wrote:

>> The Samsung & Apple methods require you to always worry the big company
>> will (for whatever reason) disable your account and that's never a good way
>> to secure critical documents because it irrevocability inserts a large
>> multinational company in the path to your own personal private data.
>
> That's not how it works on Samsung devices. You would only need Samsung
> if you forgot your password.

After multiple posts it seems you still don't understand the word "need."

The instant you said the word "need" you are showing that you don't
understand fundamentally basic security concepts for your own data.

If you "need" the impersonal overseas corporation for /ANYTHING/ related to
your data (other than to download the app perhaps), it's a bad security
model.

It doesn't matter /WHY/ you "need" that impersonal corporation, whether
it's for establishing/maintaining an account (over perhaps wildly disparate
VPN servers perhaps) when the large impersonal overseas corporation could
purely at it's own whim disable your account and all your data is lost
(or if you lose all your data because they won't re-establish your PIN).

You need to stop and think to understand the security concept of "need."

If you have to use the word "need", then it's very bad advice in terms of
your personal data (it's very good for the impersonal corporation though).

Any good security software will /NEVER/ "need" you to wait outside barefoot
in the snow on your knees begging them for forgiveness to access your data.

If your google document doesn't explain this concept for your readers, then
you are giving bad advice because to "need" breaks every rule in the book.

On 3/1/2023 5:57 PM, sms wrote:

>> Then you won't need to log into Google, Apple or Samsung to create the
>> encrypted folder, and to store and retrieve your data on any platform.
>
> Fine for files, but it doesn't work for apps.

All I'm trying to explain to you is you don't understand the protection of
data problem set when your google document suggestion requires the user to
depend for their entire life on an impersonal company for their data.

You don't understand that it's not just establishing the account (because
they can lock you out on a whim, like Google will do if you use too many
VPNs). It's not just defining a new password either (because they can lock
you out on a whim and it requires the Internet for something that has
nothing to do with the Internet). It's not just backup. Nor is the issue
that they might have access to your data.

The issue is more fundamental than any of those specific problems.
If you "need" the impersonal corporation for /ANYTHING/ it's a bad model.

You need to read the last line of this which gives just one example of why
needing to ask a large corporation for /ANYTHING/ is a bad security idea.
https://alternativeto.net/software/cryptomator/about/

"As you don't need an account, you will never stand in front of locked
doors" like you must with the likes of Apple, Google, Samsung or Microsoft.

Whatever solution you propose, if it "needs" the impersonal large
corporation anywhere in the loop, then it's a bad idea for personal data.

> The goal is to have an
> extra layer of security for sensitive apps so just because the screen is
> unlocked it doesn't mean that the app can be launched. Like Apple
> Pay--you can't pay with Apple Pay even if the phone is unlocked unless
> you use FaceID or a PIN or use an Apple Watch to unlock Apple Pay. As it
> is now, you could buy things on Amazon or eBay, etc., if the phone
> screen is unlocked.

Why not use any of the many app lock packages which have been suggested?
You can even give each app a different PIN if that's something you want.

Any security mechanism must not "need" a large corporation for anything but
the software itself. Nor should it ever "need" the Internet for anything
(for obvious reasons).

On 2/28/2023 9:20 PM, Michael wrote:
> The encrypted folder will work great for data but not for your apps.
> For apps, you can use a dedicated app locker to prevent unauthorized use.
>
> For example, none of these have ads & all handle typical biometric unlocks.
> Applock
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.superluck.applock
>
> Lock App - Smart App Locker
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hideitpro.app.protect
>
> 2020AppLock
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.unfoldlabs.applock2020
>
> App Lock - Secure Your Apps
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.systweak.applocker
>
> Private Zone - AppLock, Video
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.htwk.privatezone
>
> AppLock Face/Voice Recognition
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sensory.tsapplock

Thanks. But I'm on the iPhone so none of those applocks can work for me.

On 3/1/2023 8:20 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Anyway I think we're probably boring the iPhone folks with our Android
> talk so this will be EOD for me in this group...

Perhaps, but it's still important to note that you do _NOT_ have to be
signed in to a Samsung account for Secure Folder to work, you just have
to sign in once in order to set up the ability to retrieve your
credentials should you forget them. This is a lot different than storing
data in the cloud.

On 3/1/2023 9:04 PM, Big Dog wrote:

<snip>

> There are big problems everywhere you look when you depend on a large
> overseas corporation for a corporate account for your important data.
With Secure Folder on a Samsung device, none of your data and none of
your apps are stored in the cloud.

What is stored in the Samsung account is solely the ability to retrieve
your login credentials in case you forget them. Your data and your apps
are stored on the phone, not in the cloud.

However if you are really concerned about Samsung providing a way to
retrieve your login credentials you can use one of several Android app
lock apps that don't have such a requirement.

I added some text to the document in 187a in case anyone else is
confused about how it works:

"One person was extremely concerned that in order to use Secure Folder
on a Samsung device you must create a Samsung account. He believed that
the data and apps in the phone’s Secure Folder were somehow stored in
the cloud on Samsung’s servers. This is not how it works! What is stored
in the Samsung account is solely the ability to retrieve your login
credentials to the Secure Folder in case you forget them. Your data and
your apps are stored on the phone, not in the cloud! However if someone
is concerned about Samsung providing a way to retrieve their login
credentials then they can use one of several Android app lock apps that
don't have such a requirement."

On 3/2/2023 10:42 AM, sms wrote:

>> There are big problems everywhere you look when you depend on a large
>> overseas corporation for a corporate account for your important data.

> What is stored in the Samsung account is solely the ability to retrieve
> your login credentials in case you forget them. Your data and your apps
> are stored on the phone, not in the cloud.

Do you understand why this is a wholly unnecessary needless added problem?
> However if you are really concerned about Samsung providing a way to
> retrieve your login credentials you can use one of several Android app
> lock apps that don't have such a requirement.
>
> I added some text to the document in 187a in case anyone else is
> confused about how it works:

I was never confused.

> What is stored
> in the Samsung account is solely the ability to retrieve your login
> credentials to the Secure Folder in case you forget them.

Get rid of the word solely because there are /TWO/ login requirements.

> Your data and
> your apps are stored on the phone, not in the cloud!

Nobody said that was the issue, did they?

> However if someone
> is concerned about Samsung providing a way to retrieve their login
> credentials then they can use one of several Android app lock apps that
> don't have such a requirement."

The issue is that you have to depend on a large impersonal company to
establish and maintain the account for years, where that company can lock
your account on a whim (for example, if it doesn't like your VPN choices).

And that you have to depend on that same overseas corporation plus the
Internet whenever you need access to change your password credentials.

That you "need" the corporation for both of those is why it's a bad idea.
Please mention there are /TWO/ cases where you "need" Samsung in your doc.

Otherwise it's bad advice.

On 3/2/2023 11:17 AM, sms wrote:

>> Anyway I think we're probably boring the iPhone folks with our Android
>> talk so this will be EOD for me in this group...
>
> Perhaps, but it's still important to note that you do _NOT_ have to be
> signed in to a Samsung account for Secure Folder to work, you just have
> to sign in once in order to set up the ability to retrieve your
> credentials should you forget them. This is a lot different than storing
> data in the cloud.

There are better methods which have neither of those needless requirements.

Not only do you "need" to depend on an overseas impersonal company to
create and maintain and never lock you out of your device (for example, if
it happens not to like your choice of VPN), but you also "need" to depend
on that large impersonal company (plus the Internet) if you want to change
or retrieve your password.

Any security mechanism with either or both of those needs is a bad idea.
I'm done talking about this if you can't understand after all this time.

On 3/2/2023 9:17 AM, sms wrote:

I removed the iPhone group and renamed the thread. Enough pain for those
folks...

> it's still important to note that you do _NOT_ have to be signed in
> to a Samsung account for Secure Folder to work

When I said you need to be signed in to your Samsung account to use
Secure Folder I meant not only for its installation but to use ALL its
features (as also said in the now twice snipped reference link I provided).

> you just have to sign in once in order to set up the ability to
> retrieve your credentials should you forget them.

That's just ONE feature of the app.

> This is a lot different than storing data in the cloud.

It's kinda like my Kindle app. I can read an already downloaded ebook
without being signed in to Amazon. But to install the app and the ebook
and use ALL the app's features (like keeping my place in the ebook) I
think most folks would agree that I need to be signed in to Amazon to
use the Kindle app...

On 3/2/2023 9:02 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 11:17 AM, sms wrote:
>
>>> Anyway I think we're probably boring the iPhone folks with our Android
>>> talk so this will be EOD for me in this group...
>>
>> Perhaps, but it's still important to note that you do _NOT_ have to be
>> signed in to a Samsung account for Secure Folder to work, you just
>> have to sign in once in order to set up the ability to retrieve your
>> credentials should you forget them. This is a lot different than
>> storing data in the cloud.
>
> There are better methods which have neither of those needless requirements.
>
> Not only do you "need" to depend on an overseas impersonal company to
> create and maintain and never lock you out of your device (for example, if
> it happens not to like your choice of VPN), but you also "need" to depend
> on that large impersonal company (plus the Internet) if you want to change
> or retrieve your password.
>
> Any security mechanism with either or both of those needs is a bad idea.
> I'm done talking about this if you can't understand after all this time.

LOL, me too. I'm sure that by now you understand that Samsung does not
store any of your data or your applications.

I suppose that you also don't use any e-mail providers, Amazon, PayPal,
online banking etc., or an Apple account, since all of those have ways
to retrieve forgotten passwords, and all are "impersonal companies."

It would be great to know what your _actual_ objection is to Secure
Folders because clearly it's not that Samsung is providing a way to
retrieve forgotten credentials. The only explanation that's plausible is
that you're upset that Apple doesn't yet offer a similar feature.