On 2023-11-06 18:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
>>>> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
>>>> would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
>>>> that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
>>>
>>> Except Google are already known to be doing this  -  by their own
>>> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
>>
>> Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
>
> Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your supposedly
> private data.

No, they can not scan E2EE communications.

>
>> And we are talking RCS, not email. Different technology.
>
> Again irrelevant, it's all big data to Google, and grist for their mill.

No, there are differences.

>
>>> I don't knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any
>>> of the T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
>>> to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
>>>
>>> "I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
>>> purpose of improving their services to me."
>>
>> Why would I be surprised? The first time I asked Google to have one
>> gmail address, which at the time was by invitation, I read the
>> conditions. And they clearly said that email could be read by
>> machines, not humans, for the purpose of publicity targeting and
>> improving services. Only if using webmail, possibly.
>
> Which contradicts your earlier claim still quoted above.

Not at all, it doesn't. Learn to read.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06.11.23 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-06 17:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>> On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
>>>> Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
>>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
>>>> publicity
>>>> for RCS.
>>>
>>> I can buy this analysis :-)
>>
>> Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
>> RCS is already dead.
>
>
> Yeah, we know your manias.

You are not able to develop a critical attitude towards services you
like as a fanboy.

Google as man-in-the-middle? Never ever.
Google tries for years now but without any success. *LOL*

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-11-06 19:06, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 06.11.23 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-06 17:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
>>>>> Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
>>>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
>>>>> publicity
>>>>> for RCS.
>>>>
>>>> I can buy this analysis :-)
>>>
>>> Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
>>> RCS is already dead.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, we know your manias.
>
> You are not able to develop a critical attitude towards services you
> like as a fanboy.
>
> Google as man-in-the-middle? Never ever.
> Google tries for years now but without any success. *LOL*
>

Yeah, we know your manias.

Your opinion is noted and discarded.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 06.11.23 18:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-06 17:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 06.11.23 um 01:54 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 2023-11-05 15:24, Theo wrote:
>>>>> Google are doing this big US ad campaign to 'convince' Apple to add RCS
>>>>> support to iOS - they know Apple won't, but it just gets Google
>>>>> publicity
>>>>> for RCS.
>>>>
>>>> I can buy this analysis :-)
>>>
>>> Nowhere near an analysis! *ROTFLSTC*
>>> RCS is already dead.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, we know your manias.
>
> You are not able to develop a critical attitude towards services you
> like as a fanboy.
>
> Google as man-in-the-middle? Never ever.
> Google tries for years now but without any success. *LOL*
>
Carlos is toying with you.
Google's abusive behaviour is patent, obvious and wide-open to anybody
with half a brain.
Don't humour him. He needs a head-blow.
Ed

On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-06 18:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
>>>>> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
>>>>> would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
>>>>> that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
>>>>
>>>> Except Google are already known to be doing this  -  by their own
>>>> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
>>>
>>> Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
>>
>> Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your
>> supposedly private data.
>
> No, they can not scan E2EE communications.

Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if you
can read it, so can they.

>>> And we are talking RCS, not email. Different technology.
>>
>> Again irrelevant, it's all big data to Google, and grist for their mill.
>
> No, there are differences.

Not any that are material to the point. As below, learn to read.

>>>> I don't knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any
>>>> of the T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
>>>> to find somewhere in there some phrase such as:
>>>>
>>>> "I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
>>>> purpose of improving their services to me."
>>>
>>> Why would I be surprised? The first time I asked Google to have one
>>> gmail address, which at the time was by invitation, I read the
>>> conditions. And they clearly said that email could be read by
>>> machines, not humans, for the purpose of publicity targeting and
>>> improving services. Only if using webmail, possibly.
>>
>> Which contradicts your earlier claim still quoted above.
>
> Not at all, it doesn't. Learn to read.

Start with Shoshana Zuboff's book.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-06 18:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2023 17:29, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-06 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
>>>>>> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
>>>>>> would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
>>>>>> that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except Google are already known to be doing this  -  by their own
>>>>> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Which are not encrypted. Much less E2EE.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, the principle is exactly the same: they scan your
>>> supposedly private data.
>>
>> No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
>
> Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if you
> can read it, so can they.

WOSH! :-D

(ignoring the resti)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
>>
>> Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
>> you can read it, so can they.
>
> WOSH!  :-D
>
> (ignoring the resti)

So you have no reply. End of argument.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 06.11.23 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> WOSH!  :-D
>>
>> (ignoring the resti)
>
> So you have no reply. End of argument.

Not only in this subthread. Do not waste your time.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 14:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
> >>> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
> >>> get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of
> >>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
> >>
> >> Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
> >> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly
> >> use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
> >> cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
> >> there some phrase such as:
> >>
> >> "I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
> >> of improving their services to me."
> >
> > The - snipped - issue was:
> >
> > <JL>
> > I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
> > more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
> > </JL>
>
> Well, that's not quite correct anyway, what he should have said was:
> "more targeted ads for us".
>
> > So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both
> > Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
> > Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
> > by Gmail!
>
> The paragraph above suggests that you misunderstand what is really
> happening, but that below suggests that you do not. To clarify, the
> data they get from scanning your personal data such as emails is used in
> other places - over 2 million other places, at very least all those
> sites using Google's ad services - to match the advertisements shown
> to you with your interests as judged by scanning your personal data.

No, my point (below) is that in my actual experience, Google does
*not* "match the advertisements shown to you with your interests as
judged by scanning your personal [email] data".

It matches ads with my *browsing activity* (Duh!), but it does *not*
match ads based on its scanning of my Gmail. That's the stupid bit.

> > As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting
> > on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
> > fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products
> > which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
> > are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have
> > explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
> > isn't still stupid.)
>
> As we see daily from the amount of obviously fake news that infests
> social media, Artificial so-called Intelligence can only do so much.

It's not just only doing so much, it's *failing totally*, that's
the/my point.

At other times when this came up, some have mentioned that this
failure might be caused by the EU's strict privacy laws (both Carlos and
I are in the EU), but nobody knows for sure.

On 2023-11-07 16:15, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2023 14:43, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
>>>>> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That would
>>>>> get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of that lot of
>>>>> data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.
>>>>
>>>> Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
>>>> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't knowingly
>>>> use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the T&C of any
>>>> cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find somewhere in
>>>> there some phrase such as:
>>>>
>>>> "I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the purpose
>>>> of improving their services to me."
>>>
>>> The - snipped - issue was:
>>>
>>> <JL>
>>> I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
>>> more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.
>>> </JL>
>>
>> Well, that's not quite correct anyway, what he should have said was:
>> "more targeted ads for us".
>>
>>> So yes, they do *data analysis* of your Gmail e-mail, but AFAICT both
>>> Jeff's and Carlos' point is *ads* and in over 15 years of having (a)
>>> Gmail account(s), I still have to get the very first ad in or triggered
>>> by Gmail!
>>
>> The paragraph above suggests that you misunderstand what is really
>> happening, but that below suggests that you do not. To clarify, the
>> data they get from scanning your personal data such as emails is used in
>> other places - over 2 million other places, at very least all those
>> sites using Google's ad services - to match the advertisements shown
>> to you with your interests as judged by scanning your personal data.
>
> No, my point (below) is that in my actual experience, Google does
> *not* "match the advertisements shown to you with your interests as
> judged by scanning your personal [email] data".
>
> It matches ads with my *browsing activity* (Duh!), but it does *not*
> match ads based on its scanning of my Gmail. That's the stupid bit.

They said when they started life that they would scan mail on webmail,
not on pop3/imap/smtp.

On the other hand, they clearly scan mail looking for criteria. They
separate invoices to a folder (on wemail at least). Or for travel
tickets. This is a feature you can find useful or intrusive. It is
machine scanning, anyway. It is OFF by default on the EU.

>>> As I said before, if Google is scanning my emails and allegedly acting
>>> on that scanning, they are doing a very poor job, because after the
>>> fact, I still get *in-browser* (*not* in email/Gmail) ads for products
>>> which I already purchased and for which the order/receipt/invoice/etc.
>>> are in that same Gmail mailbox! Can you say "stupid"!? (Yes, people have
>>> explained why this is so, but that doesn't mean that the end result
>>> isn't still stupid.)
>>
>> As we see daily from the amount of obviously fake news that infests
>> social media, Artificial so-called Intelligence can only do so much.
>
> It's not just only doing so much, it's *failing totally*, that's
> the/my point.
>
> At other times when this came up, some have mentioned that this
> failure might be caused by the EU's strict privacy laws (both Carlos and
> I are in the EU), but nobody knows for sure.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
>>>
>>> Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
>>> you can read it, so can they.
>>
>> WOSH!  :-D
>>
>> (ignoring the resti)
>
> So you have no reply.  End of argument.

Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 07.11.23 um 21:26 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 06/11/2023 20:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-11-06 20:57, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2023 17:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they can not scan E2EE communications.
>>>>
>>>> Neither can you, so it has to be decrypted for you to read, and, if
>>>> you can read it, so can they.
>>>
>>> WOSH!  :-D
>>>
>>> (ignoring the resti)
>>
>> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
>
> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.

You do not understand the absolute basics of communication: You want to
be read and understood so you have to deliver accordingly.

That is where you too often fail miserably.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
>
> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.

LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
> >
> > Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>
> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!

And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
make a spelling error, just move on.

Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
should be a red flag, a *big* one!

On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
>>>
>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>
>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>
> And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
> make a spelling error, just move on.

Thank you.

My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.

The problem is that Thunderbird has two languages active, and checks the
same word against two dictionaries (or more). Previously Thunderbird
deactivated automatically the current language when you clicked on the
other, allowing only one at a time.

A missing feature in Thunderbird is automatically selecting the spelling
language based in criteria, like the folder. The speller is a pain for
multilingual people, not smart.

>
> Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
> should be a red flag, a *big* one!

Indeed.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
> >>
> >> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
> >
> > And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
> > make a spelling error, just move on.
>
> Thank you.
>
> My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.

It probably should be 'illustrate', with double-l, but I doubt that's
what you meant. You probably meant 'literate', the opposite of
'illiterate'. Or 'illustrious'?

> The problem is that Thunderbird has two languages active, and checks the
> same word against two dictionaries (or more). Previously Thunderbird
> deactivated automatically the current language when you clicked on the
> other, allowing only one at a time.
>
> A missing feature in Thunderbird is automatically selecting the spelling
> language based in criteria, like the folder. The speller is a pain for
> multilingual people, not smart.

As I mentioned in a recent discussion (with AJL?), I do not use a
spellchecker in my newsreader or e-mail agent, but use Google Translate
when I think it's called for.

The problem with built-in spellcheckers is that they only check the
spelling, not if the word(s) actually mean what you think they mean.

> > Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
> > end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
> > should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>
> Indeed.

On 2023-11-08 17:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-08 15:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-11-06 22:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you have no reply.  End of argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>>>
>>> And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
>>> make a spelling error, just move on.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> My speller says 'ilustrate' is correct.
>
> It probably should be 'illustrate', with double-l, but I doubt that's
> what you meant. You probably meant 'literate', the opposite of
> 'illiterate'. Or 'illustrious'?

illustrated, being an illustrated person. Maybe the expression did not
caught in English. It relates to people from the illustration epoch
(Spanish and French), which wikipedia says it is "Age of Enlightenment"
in English.

What language teachers call "a false friend". A word in the second
language almost identical to another in the first language, with a
totally different meaning.

:-)

....

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>
>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>
> And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
> make a spelling error, just move on.

My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to converse
in it. Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a spelling error,
it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that I'm not sure
actually what he intended to say - if anything, that's a malapropism.

> Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
> should be a red flag, a *big* one!

No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
record, most probably they will.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>>
>>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>>
>>    And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
>> make a spelling error, just move on.
>
> My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to converse
> in it.  Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a spelling error,
> it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that I'm not sure
> actually what he intended to say  -  if anything, that's a malapropism.
>
>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>
> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
> Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
> record, most probably they will.

Yes, we did.

Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>>>
>>>    And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he happens to
>>> make a spelling error, just move on.
>>
>> My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to converse
>> in it.  Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a spelling
>> error, it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that I'm not
>> sure actually what he intended to say  -  if anything, that's a
>> malapropism.
>>
>>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
>>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>>
>> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
>> record, most probably they will.
>
> Yes, we did.

No, you didn't ...

> Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.

.... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
[...]
> >>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
> >>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
> >>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
> >>
> >> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
> >> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,

No they can't. See below.

> >> and, given Google's track
> >> record, most probably they will.

You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.

> > Yes, we did.
>
> No, you didn't ...
>
> > Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
>
> ... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.

Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.

But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
- could have a backdoor somewhere.

Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely
unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.

But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
argument whatsoever.

So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other
company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?

On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
> [...]
>>>>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
>>>>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
>>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>>>>
>>>> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
>
> No they can't. See below.
>
>>>> and, given Google's track
>>>> record, most probably they will.
>
> You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
> Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.

Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.

>>> Yes, we did.
>>
>> No, you didn't ...
>>
>>> Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
>>
>> ... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
>
> Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
>
> But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
> - could have a backdoor somewhere.
>
> Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely
> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.

No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.

> But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
> argument whatsoever.
>
> So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other
> company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?

This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
argument? The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
it has taken place within that OS, so all the general public have to go
on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
Google's does not encourage such trust.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2023-11-09 13:45, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! You are not 'ilustrate' enough comment about others!
>>>>
>>>>    And how's your Spanish? His English is very good, so if he
>>>> happens to
>>>> make a spelling error, just move on.
>>>
>>> My Spanish is almost non-existent, but then I'm not trying to
>>> converse in it.  Anyway, the whole point is that it's not only a
>>> spelling error, it's entirely the wrong choice of word, so wrong that
>>> I'm not sure actually what he intended to say  -  if anything, that's
>>> a malapropism.
>>>
>>>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference
>>>> between
>>>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>>>
>>> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google, and, given Google's track
>>> record, most probably they will.
>>
>> Yes, we did.
>
> No, you didn't ...
>
>> Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
>
> ... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
>

Irrelevant.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>> On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> >>>> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
> > [...]
> >>>>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
> >>>>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
> >>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
> >>>>
> >>>> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
> >>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
> >
> > No they can't. See below.
> >
> >>>> and, given Google's track
> >>>> record, most probably they will.
> >
> > You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
> > Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
>
> Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
> Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.

Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you
misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.

> >>> Yes, we did.
> >>
> >> No, you didn't ...
> >>
> >>> Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
> >>
> >> ... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
> >
> > Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
> >
> > But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
> > - could have a backdoor somewhere.
> >
> > Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely
> > unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
>
> No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.

Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
data (unless there's a backdoor).

Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.

> > But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
> > company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
> > argument whatsoever.
> >
> > So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other
> > company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
>
> This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
> argument?

I don't omit them, you single them out.

> The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
> Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
> it has taken place within that OS,

But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place
within that OS".

> so all the general public have to go
> on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
> Google's does not encourage such trust.

Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more
than some Usenet poster who 'compares' totally different subject
matters.

I'm done.

'End-to-end encryption'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption>

On 09/11/2023 15:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2023 13:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 09/11/2023 11:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-11-09 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 14:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/11/2023 20:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I did reply. You are not ilustrate enough to understand.
>>> [...]
>>>>>>>    Anyway, before criticizing others, first learn the difference between
>>>>>>> end-to-end-encryption and no encryption. That Joerg is siding with you,
>>>>>>> should be a red flag, a *big* one!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one has answered my basic point that, if Google run the OS, and
>>>>>> Carlos can read the message, so can Google,
>>>
>>> No they can't. See below.
>>>
>>>>>> and, given Google's track
>>>>>> record, most probably they will.
>>>
>>> You're still misunderstanding/misrepresenting "Google's track record".
>>> Footstamping doesn't make a credible argument.
>>
>> Track record is all anyone has to judge a company. I can only suggest
>> that you read Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age Of Surveillance
>> Capitalism" which goes into detail on their track record.
>
> Irrelevant. You misrepresent what Google is doing with Gmail and you
> misunderstand how E2EE works / does not work.

The book is totally relevant, long sections of it details the evidence
of Google's snooping.

>>>>> Yes, we did.
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't ...
>>>>
>>>>> Google can not read the messages, that's the whole point of E2EE.
>>>>
>>>> ... because Google is running the OS that is decrypting it for you.
>>>
>>> Nope, the OS is not doing the decrypting.
>>>
>>> But your -invalid - point seems to be that someone - i.e. also Google
>>> - could have a backdoor somewhere.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's theoretically possible, but in practice it's extremely
>>> unlikely, because that would get them in big, big trouble.
>>
>> No back-doors are needed when the front is wide-open. The results of
>> decryption are fed back through the OS to be given to the user.
>
> Nope. That's not how E2EE works. The OS does not see the decrypted
> data (unless there's a backdoor).

So, for example, the encryption has its own routines to display a
message on the screen of the device? No, of course not, OS routines do it.

> Example: WhatsApp and other IM platforms.
>
>>> But even if you accept that premise, it also holds for any other
>>> company which provides end-to-end-encryption, so you haven't any real
>>> argument whatsoever.
>>>
>>> So let's turn this around: What *proof* do *you* have that some other
>>> company can *not* read your end-to-en-encrypted messages?
>>
>> This argument is exactly about Google, so why try to omit them from the
>> argument?
>
> I don't omit them, you single them out.

On account of their known record of monetising what should be customers'
private data.

>> The point of principle is that *any* company, *including*
>> Google, that provides an OS can read the results of a decryption after
>> it has taken place within that OS,
>
> But that's your false premise, the decryption does *not* "take place
> within that OS".

Well, that's trying to bend what I'm saying to suit your own argument,
but doesn't make it any less true. How exactly do you want me to say
it? The OS controls the memory space within the device; it controls the
time sharing between applications; in response to user input it launches
the programs that use the encryption; finally and most importantly, OS
routines output the decrypted data on the screen or whereever. I think
it's reasonable to describe that process as I did above.

>> so all the general public have to go
>> on in deciding whether to trust such a company is track-record, and
>> Google's does not encourage such trust.
>
> Well, on *this* (note emphasis) aspect (RCS E2EE), I trust Google more
> than some Usenet poster

Fine, but, from the sound of it, you would still be very well advised to
read Shoshana Zuboff's book to understand what is really going on with
Google and other like companies.

> who 'compares' totally different subject
> matters.

Eh? Let me remind how this whole subthread began, which was as follows:

On 05/11/2023 15:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> I assume that if Google gets their success with RCS that would mean
> more data available for analysis by them, and more ads for us.

[Note: I've already pointed out that he should have said "more targetted
ads for us."]

To which Carlos replied:

On 06/11/2023 00:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> No, no big company with a modicum of sense would do that. Just
> collecting data, massively, to analyze and target publicity? That
> would get known, many people need to be in the know to make use of
> that lot of data. Too risky. Thus, not likely.

But Google are already known to do just that, viz: "Just collecting
data, massively, to analyze and target publicity", so I replied:

On 06/11/2023 11:25, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Except Google are already known to be doing this - by their own
> admission they already scan all emails on gmail, etc. I don't
> knowingly use cloud services, and therefore haven't read any of the
> T&C of any cloud service, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
> somewhere in there some phrase such as:
>
> "I agree that <Google|whoever> scans my data for malware and the
> purpose of improving their services to me."

So ISTM that I've been entirely consistent in what I've said.

--

Fake news kills!

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