Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> I hope you like egg and pie:
>>
>> <https://www.klm.nl/en/contact/booking/help-online-booking>
>>
>> Chris already pointed to the contact in WhatsApp, but this is an
>> external reference to it.
>
> The Dutch government uses it:
> https://www.netherlandsworldwide.nl/contact
>
> Especially abroad, WA is more reliable than the local phone
> system.

Not sure I agree with that. Within a certain demographic maybe, but it
won't be as ubiquitous as the phone system.

It does have other advantages though.

On 2023-05-04 17:41, Incubus wrote:
> On 2023-05-04, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>   I hope you like egg and pie:
>>>
>>> <https://www.klm.nl/en/contact/booking/help-online-booking>
>>>
>>>   Chris already pointed to the contact in WhatsApp, but this is an
>>> external reference to it.
>>
>> The Dutch government uses it:
>> https://www.netherlandsworldwide.nl/contact
>>
>> Especially abroad, WA is more reliable than the local phone
>> system.
>
> I've heard others say that and I always wondered if internet calls took
> up less data than phone calls do. Otherwise why would that be the case?

No, they can actually take more, and thus have more quality of sound.

A POTS call takes 64 kbits per second (56 in the USA (or was it 52?)),
restricted to 300..3300 Hz. No compression. The mobile network can use
compression and put 4 calls in a single channel.

>
> If you're sitting at a hotspot, you're relying on the reliability of the
> wifi signal of that hotspot so it could be more reliable than cellular.
>
> But if you're not sitting at a hotspot, then you're still relying on the
> local phone system to connect you to the Internet.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <u7adijxp8n.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > I've heard others say that and I always wondered if internet calls took
> > up less data than phone calls do. Otherwise why would that be the case?
>
> No, they can actually take more, and thus have more quality of sound.
>
> A POTS call takes 64 kbits per second (56 in the USA (or was it 52?)),
> restricted to 300..3300 Hz. No compression. The mobile network can use
> compression and put 4 calls in a single channel.

that's outdated.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE>
In addition, many carriers and devices can use Enhanced Voice
Services (EVS). This is a up to superwideband (50­14,000 Hz) or
fullband (20­20,000 Hz) codec backwards-compatible with AMR-WB.
This codec is also known under the trademark HD Voice+, after GSMA's
certification program.

On Apr 27, 2023, badgolferman wrote
(in article<news:xn0o13bkc8mejmx001@reader443.eternal-september.org>):

>>It would be ever easier if you could log in to WhatsApp with a user id
>>and password.
>
> Isn't it true that companies are trying to do away with
> username/password systems?

apple
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-new-password-manager-2fa-iphone-ipad/

google
https://gizmodo.com/google-passkeys-fido-alliance-apple-microsoft-security-1850399289

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

Am 27.04.23 um 17:54 schrieb nospam:
> In article <xn0o13bkc8mejmx001@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't it true that companies are trying to do away with
>> username/password systems?
>
> it is true, but that's going to take a while.

I would say they try hard but they probably will never get there.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 02.05.23 um 12:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> Spain is 85%.

Not even 85% of all Spaniards have a smart phone let alone WA on it.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 01.05.23 um 23:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2023-05-01 16:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 27.04.23 um 23:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2023-04-27 20:45, sms wrote:
>>>> There are security reasons why they tie the service to a phone number.
>>>> It's meant to be a replacement for SMS, and it does essentially serve
>>>> that purpose in much of Europe, in India, some other parts of Asia, and
>>>> in parts of Central and South America.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>> This is absolutely incorrect. No professional service is using WA for a
>> 2FA for instance or allowing access to anything with a Zuckerberg-crap.
>> This is a teenager view.
>
> Nobody said so.
>

In real professional organisations the use of WA is forbidden for very
good reasons:

https://www.watson.ch/digital/schweiz/715285521-schweizer-armee-verbietet-whatsapp-und-befiehlt-threema-nutzung

https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9o4fYyt3-AhVOSPEDHXxdDt0QFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nau.ch%2Fnews%2Fvideos%2Fdarum-gibts-an-schweizer-schulen-ein-whatsapp-verbot-65480470&usg=AOvVaw2joH6p4sdW9Hw-FEnXutau

https://www.lch.ch/aktuell/detail/whatsapp-ist-nicht-datenschutzkonform

I could add dozens of links of that kind. No serious institution would
ever use WA for doing business. Even the Dutch Airline Air France/KLM is
just using it for contacts instead of phone calls.

WA is primarily a messenger for teenagers and housewives.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-05-05 08:52, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.05.23 um 23:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2023-05-01 16:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 27.04.23 um 23:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> On 2023-04-27 20:45, sms wrote:
>>>>> There are security reasons why they tie the service to a phone number.
>>>>> It's meant to be a replacement for SMS, and it does essentially serve
>>>>> that purpose in much of Europe, in India, some other parts of Asia, and
>>>>> in parts of Central and South America.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> This is absolutely incorrect. No professional service is using WA for a
>>> 2FA for instance or allowing access to anything with a Zuckerberg-crap.
>>> This is a teenager view.
>>
>> Nobody said so.
>>
>
> In real professional organisations the use of WA is forbidden for very
> good reasons:

Only in Switzerland, which is a very weird country :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 01.05.23 um 23:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> > On 2023-05-01 16:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >> Am 27.04.23 um 23:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> >>> On 2023-04-27 20:45, sms wrote:
> >>>> There are security reasons why they tie the service to a phone number.
> >>>> It's meant to be a replacement for SMS, and it does essentially serve
> >>>> that purpose in much of Europe, in India, some other parts of Asia, and
> >>>> in parts of Central and South America.
> >>>
> >>> Correct.
> >>
> >> This is absolutely incorrect. No professional service is using WA for a
> >> 2FA for instance or allowing access to anything with a Zuckerberg-crap.
> >> This is a teenager view.
> >
> > Nobody said so.
> >
>
> In real professional organisations the use of WA is forbidden for very
> good reasons:
>
> https://www.watson.ch/digital/schweiz/715285521-schweizer-armee-verbietet-whatsapp-und-befiehlt-threema-nutzung
>
> https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9o4fYyt3-AhVOSPEDHXxdDt0QFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nau.ch%2Fnews%2Fvideos%2Fdarum-gibts-an-schweizer-schulen-ein-whatsapp-verbot-65480470&usg=AOvVaw2joH6p4sdW9Hw-FEnXutau
>
> https://www.lch.ch/aktuell/detail/whatsapp-ist-nicht-datenschutzkonform
>
> I could add dozens of links of that kind. No serious institution would
> ever use WA for doing business.

You keep harping on that untenable silly stance of yours. Apparently
you want more egg and pie.

In the meantime, other posters and I have given numerousa examples of
'serious' institutions which *are* using WhatsApp for doing business.

> Even the Dutch Airline Air France/KLM is
> just using it for contacts instead of phone calls.

"just using it for contacts instead of phone calls" *is* "doing
businesss", despite the foot-stamping of some Swiss poster.

If booking a flight, changing a flight, etc., etc., is not "doing
business", then what *is*!?

Adding insult to injury, Swiss, the major Swiss airline is using
Facebook (<barf!>) and Twitter for 'Contact us'.

> WA is primarily a messenger for teenagers and housewives.

I thought it was a rock, but apparently it's a whole mountain.

RonTheGuy wrote:

>On Apr 27, 2023, badgolferman wrote
>(in article<news:xn0o13bkc8mejmx001@reader443.eternal-september.org>):
>
>>>It would be ever easier if you could log in to WhatsApp with a
>>>user id and password.
>>
>> Isn't it true that companies are trying to do away with
>> username/password systems?
>
>apple
>https://www.wired.com/story/apple-new-password-manager-2fa-iphone-ipad/

I use Bitwarden across all my devices, Windows and Apple devices.

>google
>https://gizmodo.com/google-passkeys-fido-alliance-apple-microsoft-security-1850399289
>

This one looks like a different version of a Single Sign On CAC or PIV
card. Rather than have a separate card with your certificate, it's
stored on your phone. I suppose you need that certificate or private
key on all your devices as well.

--
"A word to the wise isn’t necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the
advice." ~ Bill Cosby

On 5/5/2023 3:29 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> You keep harping on that untenable silly stance of yours. Apparently
> you want more egg and pie.

No one would think any worse of Jorge if he simply admitted his mistake.

No one is claiming that banks or other businesses are using WhatsApp for
2FA. But they are definitely using it to communicate with their customers.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 01.05.23 um 23:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2023-05-01 16:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 27.04.23 um 23:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>> On 2023-04-27 20:45, sms wrote:
>>>>> There are security reasons why they tie the service to a phone number.
>>>>> It's meant to be a replacement for SMS, and it does essentially serve
>>>>> that purpose in much of Europe, in India, some other parts of Asia, and
>>>>> in parts of Central and South America.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> This is absolutely incorrect. No professional service is using WA for a
>>> 2FA for instance or allowing access to anything with a Zuckerberg-crap.
>>> This is a teenager view.
>>
>> Nobody said so.
>>
>
> In real professional organisations the use of WA is forbidden for very
> good reasons:
>
> https://www.watson.ch/digital/schweiz/715285521-schweizer-armee-verbietet-whatsapp-und-befiehlt-threema-nutzung
>
> https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9o4fYyt3-AhVOSPEDHXxdDt0QFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nau.ch%2Fnews%2Fvideos%2Fdarum-gibts-an-schweizer-schulen-ein-whatsapp-verbot-65480470&usg=AOvVaw2joH6p4sdW9Hw-FEnXutau
>
> https://www.lch.ch/aktuell/detail/whatsapp-ist-nicht-datenschutzkonform
>
> I could add dozens of links of that kind. No serious institution would
> ever use WA for doing business. Even the Dutch Airline Air France/KLM is
> just using it for contacts instead of phone calls.
>
> WA is primarily a messenger for teenagers and housewives.

And don't forget the british government
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106

On 2023-05-05 19:42, Chris wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 01.05.23 um 23:58 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2023-05-01 16:43, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 27.04.23 um 23:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>>>> On 2023-04-27 20:45, sms wrote:
>>>>>> There are security reasons why they tie the service to a phone number.
>>>>>> It's meant to be a replacement for SMS, and it does essentially serve
>>>>>> that purpose in much of Europe, in India, some other parts of Asia, and
>>>>>> in parts of Central and South America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>> This is absolutely incorrect. No professional service is using WA for a
>>>> 2FA for instance or allowing access to anything with a Zuckerberg-crap.
>>>> This is a teenager view.
>>>
>>> Nobody said so.
>>>
>>
>> In real professional organisations the use of WA is forbidden for very
>> good reasons:
>>
>> https://www.watson.ch/digital/schweiz/715285521-schweizer-armee-verbietet-whatsapp-und-befiehlt-threema-nutzung
>>
>> https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9o4fYyt3-AhVOSPEDHXxdDt0QFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nau.ch%2Fnews%2Fvideos%2Fdarum-gibts-an-schweizer-schulen-ein-whatsapp-verbot-65480470&usg=AOvVaw2joH6p4sdW9Hw-FEnXutau
>>
>> https://www.lch.ch/aktuell/detail/whatsapp-ist-nicht-datenschutzkonform
>>
>> I could add dozens of links of that kind. No serious institution would
>> ever use WA for doing business. Even the Dutch Airline Air France/KLM is
>> just using it for contacts instead of phone calls.
>>
>> WA is primarily a messenger for teenagers and housewives.
>
> And don't forget the british government
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106

I don't see there an explanation of how someone got hold of those
messages. That would be more interesting.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>" wrote in message
<news:u333qu$2crc4$1@dont-email.me>...

> No one is claiming that banks or other businesses are using WhatsApp for
> 2FA. But they are definitely using it to communicate with their customers.

It's just another way to communicate.
--
Regards
wasbit

On 2023-05-05 21:13, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-05 19:42, Chris wrote:

>> And don't forget the british government
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106
>
> I don't see there an explanation of how someone got hold of those
> messages. That would be more interesting.

Found it.

<https://news.sky.com/story/how-have-matt-hancocks-whatsapp-messages-been-leaked-and-what-is-a-non-disclosure-agreement-12822797>

*How have Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages been leaked – and what is a
non-disclosure agreement?*

The former health secretary claims that journalist Isabel Oakeshott
broke a non-disclosure agreement that she would only use his WhatsApp
messages as background material to help him write his book.

So, they did not break WhatsApp.

I wonder if the leaker did find herself in court.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-05-01 14:00, nospam wrote:
> In article <vCS3M.2497571$iS99.2091511@fx16.iad>, Alan Browne
> <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The point discussed is whether such systems use a phone number. They do
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> they do.
>>>
>>>> Everything comes out of the comment from me 2023-04-29::14:37 (EDST) and
>>>> your reply:
>>>>
>>>> = = = = = = = = = =
>>>> Me:
>>>> > Cell Phone co's provide data plans that don't use up a "phone
>>>> > number".[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You:
>>>> "that is incorrect."
>>>> = = = = = = = = = =
>>>
>>> it *is* incorrect.
>>
>> Make up your mind:
>>
>> ===========
>> Carols E.R.:
>> > No, I'm afraid PoC system doesn't use phone numbers and routing. It is
>> > different.
>>
>> You:
>> nobody said they did.
>
> nobody was talking about poc systems or how they're routed, until you
> brought it up as a diversion.

It was brought up in the same vein as metering systems ("Frank" - April 29).

Rest of your deflection and dodging snipped.

I'm done with this.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-05-05 21:13, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-05-05 19:42, Chris wrote:
>
>
>>> And don't forget the british government
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106
>>
>> I don't see there an explanation of how someone got hold of those
>> messages. That would be more interesting.
>
> Found it.
>
> <https://news.sky.com/story/how-have-matt-hancocks-whatsapp-messages-been-leaked-and-what-is-a-non-disclosure-agreement-12822797>
>
> *How have Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages been leaked – and what is a
> non-disclosure agreement?*
>
> The former health secretary claims that journalist Isabel Oakeshott
> broke a non-disclosure agreement that she would only use his WhatsApp
> messages as background material to help him write his book.
>
>
>
> So, they did not break WhatsApp.
>
>
> I wonder if the leaker did find herself in court.

Nope. As a journalist in the UK you can claim "in the public interest" as
defence against an NDA which was clearly the case here. She wasn't even
arrested.

What's laughable is that Oakeshott was notorious for breaking agreements
and yet Hancock fell for the let's right a book together ruse. He handed
over all his WA messages freely and willingly. His career in office is over
now due to the lack of discretion.

On 2023-05-06 18:27, Chris wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-05-05 21:13, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-05 19:42, Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And don't forget the british government
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106
>>>
>>> I don't see there an explanation of how someone got hold of those
>>> messages. That would be more interesting.
>>
>> Found it.
>>
>> <https://news.sky.com/story/how-have-matt-hancocks-whatsapp-messages-been-leaked-and-what-is-a-non-disclosure-agreement-12822797>
>>
>> *How have Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages been leaked – and what is a
>> non-disclosure agreement?*
>>
>> The former health secretary claims that journalist Isabel Oakeshott
>> broke a non-disclosure agreement that she would only use his WhatsApp
>> messages as background material to help him write his book.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, they did not break WhatsApp.
>>
>>
>> I wonder if the leaker did find herself in court.
>
> Nope. As a journalist in the UK you can claim "in the public interest" as
> defence against an NDA which was clearly the case here. She wasn't even
> arrested.

That's too bad.

> What's laughable is that Oakeshott was notorious for breaking agreements
> and yet Hancock fell for the let's right a book together ruse. He handed
> over all his WA messages freely and willingly. His career in office is over
> now due to the lack of discretion.

So much for the given word.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.