Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> MLS will allow all the closed messengers to interoperate, and the
>> EU is going to put pressure on them ...
>
> Sorry but this is wrong. And that is the point where the EU will not
> intervene with a very high degree of probability.

Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act?

That is unless they frighten away the providers with their
anti-encryption "think of the children" stance ...

> There are so many channels for mobile communication.
How many is too many? Should everyone install them all on their phone?

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> > Am 14.08.23 um 18:00 schrieb Chris:
> >> The use of, say WA, is not in and of itself contrary to GDPR.
> >
> > De facto it is.
>
> Nope. Not even in latin.
>
> > Unusable if contacts/adresses are not uploaded to Facebook.
>
> Nothing to do with GDPR.

And yet another example of Jörg's urban legends / FUD.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
> > schrieb Andy Burns:
> >
> >> MLS will allow all the closed messengers to interoperate, and the
> >> EU is going to put pressure on them ...
> >
> > Sorry but this is wrong. And that is the point where the EU will not
> > intervene with a very high degree of probability.
>
> Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act?

Spoilsport!

> That is unless they frighten away the providers with their
> anti-encryption "think of the children" stance ...
>
> > There are so many channels for mobile communication.
> How many is too many? Should everyone install them all on their phone?

Speaking of "so many channels for mobile communication", why don't we
all switch to using Avian Carriers!?

<https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt>

Dave Royal wrote:

> On an iPhone you can specify that you want a message sent by SMS rather
> than the default iMessage - Apple's proprietary equivalent of RCS

Google Messages app does allow you to disable RCS on a per-recipient
basis ...

You first highlight a conversation,
then press [...]
from the menu pick Details
there's a slider to "Only send as text"

Thankfully I discovered this as I have one relative who seems to have
flaky wifi, that somehow causes RCS messages to/from him to fail or be
delayed, this way I can turn RCS off just for him.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 15.08.23 um 08:48 schrieb Chris:
>> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 14.08.23 um 18:00 schrieb Chris:
>>>> The use of, say WA, is not in and of itself contrary to GDPR.
>>>
>>> De facto it is.
>>
>> Nope. Not even in latin.
>>
>>> Unusable if contacts/adresses are not uploaded to Facebook.
>>
>> Nothing to do with GDPR.
>
> You really do not understand

Lol. Given all the responses on here and your inability to comprehend why
you're wrong, it is clearly not me who doesn't understand.

I run data projects using sensitive data and need to be trained up annually
on the various data protection regulations including GDPR. For my job I
need to know what GDPR means in the real world.

> the dimension of the issue: *That is the
> biggest single issue*. And the reason why companies and autorities
> forbid the use of WA.

You're confusing what Meta's responsibilities under GDPR are vs what
individual users' - even businesses - responsibilities are.

How Meta uses their data on users is very problematic under GDPR. What we
do with WA isn't. Unless you share confidential/sensitive data, as I
highlighted previously.

If uploading contact details to a provider's server was such an issue every
email provider from Google down would be in contravention of GDPR.

On 2023-08-14 18:56, sms wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 12:57 PM, Dave Royal wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> SMS (and MMS) does not need an internet connection - that's the most
>> important difference. RCS (iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc) all
>> need an internet connection.
>
> MMS requires a data connection, either mobile data or Wi-Fi.
>
I think I sent MMS prior to my phone having data. Old phone.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-08-15 13:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your scenario can at best become reality if Apple adopts RCS.
>>>
>>> Or everyone adopts MLS ...
>>
>> Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is a security layer for end-to-end
>> encrypting messages in arbitrarily sized groups. It is maintained by the
>> MLS working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force to provide an
>> efficient and practical security mechanism.
>>
>> Has AFAIK nothing to do with the decision which messenger or protocol is
>> used.
>
> MLS will allow all the closed messengers to interoperate, and the EU is
> going to put pressure on them ...

I heard of that.

> Imagine if people on Deutsche Telekom couldn't call people on SwissCom,
> that's how stupid the current bunch of messengers are.

Which indeed happens some times.

For example, Telefónica in Spain, as it is defined as 2doinant telco" is
mandated to accept all calls. But secondary telcos are not, and some
times calls from one minor telco to another minor telco do not complete,
give some error. They don't have a commercial agreement and
corresponding interconnections.

(I know this first hand)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-08-14 14:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> nospam: Nobody needs RCS.
>>
>> False. I do.
>
> I wouldn't say I need RCS, but I do use it in preference to SMS.

It is needed to communicate across the pond for free, if the other side
doesn't have whatapp or something. Many people over there use SMS/MMS.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 16.08.23 um 11:01 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-08-15 13:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your scenario can at best become reality if Apple adopts RCS.
>>>>
>>>> Or everyone adopts MLS ...
>>>
>>> Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is a security layer for end-to-end
>>> encrypting messages in arbitrarily sized groups. It is maintained by the
>>> MLS working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force to provide an
>>> efficient and practical security mechanism.
>>>
>>> Has AFAIK nothing to do with the decision which messenger or protocol is
>>> used.
>>
>> MLS will allow all the closed messengers to interoperate, and the EU is
>> going to put pressure on them ...
>
> I heard of that.
>
>> Imagine if people on Deutsche Telekom couldn't call people on SwissCom,
>> that's how stupid the current bunch of messengers are.
>
> Which indeed happens some times.

*LOL*
The regulator is very strict here in Switzerland. It does not happen for
telephony. The example is far fetched and wrong.

BTW: The company is called Swisscom.

--
Alea iacta est

On 2023-08-16 11:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 16.08.23 um 11:01 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 2023-08-15 13:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your scenario can at best become reality if Apple adopts RCS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or everyone adopts MLS ...
>>>>
>>>> Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is a security layer for end-to-end
>>>> encrypting messages in arbitrarily sized groups. It is maintained by the
>>>> MLS working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force to provide an
>>>> efficient and practical security mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> Has AFAIK nothing to do with the decision which messenger or protocol is
>>>> used.
>>>
>>> MLS will allow all the closed messengers to interoperate, and the EU is
>>> going to put pressure on them ...
>>
>> I heard of that.
>>
>>> Imagine if people on Deutsche Telekom couldn't call people on SwissCom,
>>> that's how stupid the current bunch of messengers are.
>>
>> Which indeed happens some times.
>
> *LOL*
> The regulator is very strict here in Switzerland. It does not happen for
> telephony. The example is far fetched and wrong.
>
> BTW: The company is called Swisscom.
Of course it doesn't happen with Swisscom, it is a dominant telco.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 16 Aug 2023 10:56:04 +0200 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>On 2023-08-14 18:56, sms wrote:
>> On 8/11/2023 12:57 PM, Dave Royal wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> SMS (and MMS) does not need an internet connection - that's the most
>>> important difference. RCS (iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc) all
>>> need an internet connection.
>>
>> MMS requires a data connection, either mobile data or Wi-Fi.
>>
>I think I sent MMS prior to my phone having data. Old phone.
>
Yes, you need a data connection to send an MMS: it's data. My point was
you don't need an internet connection like, say, WhatsApp or (IIUC) RCS.
Or you didn't used to.

My old Nokia phones supported MMS, and they sent data to the MMSC over
GPRS. Modern phones give you the ability to turn mobile data off. I
suppose you may have to turn it on to send an MMS - I don't know. I don't
think my old phones had an option to turn mobile data off, apart from
flight mode. You either used it - eg WAP - or didn't. Symbian didn't
update OTA!

I've recently been on a PAYG tariff that charged per MMS - about 10x as
much as an SMS. I notice that my current PAYG tariff, giffgaff (a UK
MVNO), doesn't mention them; perhaps they're just charged as data.

I didn't know you could send them over wifi. giffgaff doesn't do 'wifi
calling' so I doubt if I could if I wanted to.
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 8/11/2023 3:00 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> This has been debunked over and over again, with you ignoring or/and
> snipping the evidence each time. Foot stamping might be somewhat cute
> for a three year old, for a presumed adult not so much.

Perhaps filtering him out is the best option, as many of us have already
done.

He thrives on getting a reaction when he lies. No one believes him, so
don't feel a need to constantly correct him.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards