On 17.01.24 18:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz, 2024-01-17 17:58:
>
>> On 17.01.24 15:32, Andrew wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. wrote on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:09:00 +0100 :
>>>
>>>> There is only one contact list, the system one (the general one).
>>>
>>> This is wrong.
>>>
>>> There may be only one /default/ contact database.
>>> But WhatsApp has a /direct dialer/ that maintains its own contacts.
>>>
>>> As do all good contacts, dialers, SMS/MMS and VOIP programs on Android.
>>
>> Thats wrong AFAIK. Can you deliver proof of this claim? I guess you can't.
>
> <https://github.com/alejandrolopezparra/AndroidContactsDatabase-tools>

Idiot: This is a system-component and not an app.

--
"Manus manum lavat."

Joerg Lorenz wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:36:55 +0100 :

> This is a system-component and not an app.

This is an app which proves everything you've said is just so very wrong.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ml.bluelinestudio.privatecontact

Private Contacts isolates your contacts from rest of the applications on
your phone. Give your contacts the privacy they deserve, start a whatsapp
conversation with your private contacts without having to save them to your
primary contact app.

Features
App Lock
Whatsapp Conversations
Call
Sms
Text

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 18.01.24 10:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> > On 2024-01-17 22:51, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >> Am 17.01.24 um 21:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> >>> On 2024-01-17 17:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >>>> On 17.01.24 14:41, s|b wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:13 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
> >>>>>> this criminal gang. That is why European companies forbid the use
> >>>>>> of WA
> >>>>>> on company phones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They do? Which ones?
> >>>>
> >>>> All. Otherwise they are in breach of the GDPR. Can be extremely
> >>>> expensive and painful. Hence my connotation that *WA is for housewifes
> >>>> and teenagers*. And forget this bullshit about E2E-encryption.
> >>>
> >>> False.
> >>
> >> Sweet. Because you cannot handle an attack on your beloved housewife toy?
> >>
> >>> I know people on important technology companies, with company phones,
> >>> and using wasap.
> >>
> >> That does not relativize what I say. The European law is clear about that.
> >
> > Yeah, sure.
> >
> > Because you hate wasap, we have to believe you?
>
> Just read the text of the law. It is so easy.
> To help you to understand the topic and its scope I add the link of
> Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>
> There is a separate article concerning the fines in case of
> noncompliance. The mentioned figures further above in this thread give
> you an idea of the possible financial implications.
>
> https://gdpr-info.eu

We know all about the GDPR, but you fail to show that WhatsApp
violates the GDPR.

You can only emit utter nonsense like:

[Repeat/rewind:]

> >>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
> >>>>>> this criminal gang.

Which you *say*, but 1) which you can't *prove* (because it's false)
and 2) has been repeatedly been debunked by technical information
(clue-by-four: hash) from WhatsApp Legal [1] and again in this thread.

So stop your silly foot-stamping about stuff about which you have no
clue.

[1] For example:
Message-ID: <t0np3c.c4s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

And please don't humiliate yourself again like you did here:
Message-ID: <t0qf2v.1gk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>Joerg Lorenz wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:36:55 +0100 :
>
>> This is a system-component and not an app.
>
>This is an app which proves everything you've said is just so very wrong.
>https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ml.bluelinestudio.privatecontact
>
>Private Contacts isolates your contacts from rest of the applications on
>your phone. Give your contacts the privacy they deserve, start a whatsapp
>conversation with your private contacts without having to save them to your
>primary contact app.

But doesn't that mean you have to reenter a bunch of contact
information, maybe more than once? That's not as easy on the phone as
on a PC or a paper tablet.
>
>Features
>App Lock
>Whatsapp Conversations
>Call
>Sms
>Text

In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:51:04 +0100, Jörg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

>Am 17.01.24 um 21:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 2024-01-17 17:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 17.01.24 14:41, s|b wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:13 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
>>>>> this criminal gang. That is why European companies forbid the use of WA
>>>>> on company phones.
>>>>
>>>> They do? Which ones?
>>>
>>> All. Otherwise they are in breach of the GDPR. Can be extremely
>>> expensive and painful. Hence my connotation that *WA is for housewifes
>>> and teenagers*. And forget this bullshit about E2E-encryption.
>>
>> False.
>
>Sweet. Because you cannot handle an attack on your beloved housewife toy?

You really know how to win friends.

>> I know people on important technology companies, with company phones,
>> and using wasap.
>
>That does not relativize what I say. The European law is clear about that.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 18 Jan 2024 16:20:32 GMT :

> So stop your silly foot-stamping about stuff about which you have no
> clue.

What I find revealing is that people like the guy you're responding to
repeatedly make very strong statements so they certainly must believe very
strongly in those statements.

And yet, they're totally wrong.
Worse, they're easily shown to be totally wrong.

So what does that mean about the kind of thinking processes they use?
They don't exist, right?

They're just guessing.
And yet, they're extremely confident in what turns out to be wrong guesses.

What kind of person does that?

micky wrote on Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:40:27 -0500 :

> But doesn't that mean you have to reenter a bunch of contact
> information, maybe more than once? That's not as easy on the phone as
> on a PC or a paper tablet.

Let's start that answer from the top, as this thread was so filled with
wrong answers that I don't understand why almost everything said in this
thread was just wrong.

The main take away I got from this thread is almost nobody understands
Android contacts. I think that's why almost every statement that people
said in this thread has been wrong (& also easily shown to be wrong).

If people repeatedly say the wrong thing, when it's easily shown to be
wrong, then there's something wrong with the way those people think, right?

Why is that?
I don't know.

But I think the reason is that people only use contacts the one way that
they're told to use contacts - but that's not the only way to use them.

They think there is only one way to use contacts - but they're wrong.
They think that one way is the way they're told to - but that's wrong too.

The way most people use contacts, I think, is they populate the default
contacts database over time, and then they upload it to Google servers.

Meanwhile, they update their contacts as needed, over many years.
At some point, that contacts database becomes gospel to them.

The "master copy" only exists on the Google servers for most people.

Every few years they lose their phone or they get a new phone and they
re-populate their contacts on that phone from that same Google server.

But it gets worse than that.

Because they only do what they're told to do, they use the default dialers,
contacts managers, messaging, and even Maps apps, all of which suck in
those contacts, again re-enforcing their (wrong) idea that there can only
be one contacts database.

Then you came in asking about WhatsApp contacts, which you found your
answer to, but others (wrongly) said WhatsApp has to hoover your contacts.

They're wrong.

Because most people only do what they're told to do, they think that's the
only way it can be done - but it's not the only way contacts can be done.

WhatsApp can be given just contacts that you know have WhatsApp accounts.
That's precisely why the many WhatsApp dialers I already mentioned exist.

Your contacts program and your messaging app and your dialers are the same.
They can all be given only the contacts that you want to give each app.

Where do you get /those/ contacts from?
Same place (if you want).

You export from your Google contacts, or from your default contacts, or
from your Thunderbird contacts or from an Excel spreadsheet to VCARD.

Instead of maintaining a default contacts database on Android, you leave
the default database empty (for reasons that are mostly based on privacy).

Instead, your default contacts database is the VCARD file that you save.
Most good apps will import (and export) that VCARD contacts database.

If the app doesn't import/export, then find another app that does.
The definition of a good app (in terms of privacy) is one that will.

That's the (long winded, but correct) answer to your question just asked.
I hope I didn't waste the time & energy I invested in giving that answer.

On 19.01.24 03:41, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 17 Jan 2024 22:51:04 +0100, Jörg Lorenz
> <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Am 17.01.24 um 21:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>> On 2024-01-17 17:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On 17.01.24 14:41, s|b wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:13 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
>>>>>> this criminal gang. That is why European companies forbid the use of WA
>>>>>> on company phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do? Which ones?
>>>>
>>>> All. Otherwise they are in breach of the GDPR. Can be extremely
>>>> expensive and painful. Hence my connotation that *WA is for housewifes
>>>> and teenagers*. And forget this bullshit about E2E-encryption.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Sweet. Because you cannot handle an attack on your beloved housewife toy?
>
> You really know how to win friends.

It is what it is. Has nothing to do with friends or not.

--
"Manus manum lavat."

On 2024-01-18 17:20, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 18.01.24 10:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-01-17 22:51, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Am 17.01.24 um 21:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>> On 2024-01-17 17:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> On 17.01.24 14:41, s|b wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:13 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
>>>>>>>> this criminal gang. That is why European companies forbid the use
>>>>>>>> of WA
>>>>>>>> on company phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They do? Which ones?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All. Otherwise they are in breach of the GDPR. Can be extremely
>>>>>> expensive and painful. Hence my connotation that *WA is for housewifes
>>>>>> and teenagers*. And forget this bullshit about E2E-encryption.
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>> Sweet. Because you cannot handle an attack on your beloved housewife toy?
>>>>
>>>>> I know people on important technology companies, with company phones,
>>>>> and using wasap.
>>>>
>>>> That does not relativize what I say. The European law is clear about that.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>
>>> Because you hate wasap, we have to believe you?
>>
>> Just read the text of the law. It is so easy.
>> To help you to understand the topic and its scope I add the link of
>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>>
>> There is a separate article concerning the fines in case of
>> noncompliance. The mentioned figures further above in this thread give
>> you an idea of the possible financial implications.
>>
>> https://gdpr-info.eu
>
> We know all about the GDPR, but you fail to show that WhatsApp
> violates the GDPR.

Indeed.

If there were a violation, and a clear one as he claims, the courts
would jump for it. So, there is no violation.

>
> You can only emit utter nonsense like:
>
> [Repeat/rewind:]
>
>>>>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
>>>>>>>> this criminal gang.
>
> Which you *say*, but 1) which you can't *prove* (because it's false)
> and 2) has been repeatedly been debunked by technical information
> (clue-by-four: hash) from WhatsApp Legal [1] and again in this thread.
>
> So stop your silly foot-stamping about stuff about which you have no
> clue.
>
> [1] For example:
> Message-ID: <t0np3c.c4s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
>
> And please don't humiliate yourself again like you did here:
> Message-ID: <t0qf2v.1gk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes:

> On 18.01.24 10:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2024-01-17 22:51, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 17.01.24 um 21:53 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>> On 2024-01-17 17:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> On 17.01.24 14:41, s|b wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:13 +0100, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And everyone in the contacts - if they like it or not - is exposed to
>>>>>>> this criminal gang. That is why European companies forbid the use
>>>>>>> of WA
>>>>>>> on company phones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do? Which ones?
>>>>>
>>>>> All. Otherwise they are in breach of the GDPR. Can be extremely
>>>>> expensive and painful. Hence my connotation that *WA is for housewifes
>>>>> and teenagers*. And forget this bullshit about E2E-encryption.
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>
>>> Sweet. Because you cannot handle an attack on your beloved housewife toy?
>>>
>>>> I know people on important technology companies, with company phones,
>>>> and using wasap.
>>>
>>> That does not relativize what I say. The European law is clear about that.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, sure.
>>
>> Because you hate wasap, we have to believe you?
>
> Just read the text of the law. It is so easy.
> To help you to understand the topic and its scope I add the link of
> Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
>
> There is a separate article concerning the fines in case of
> noncompliance. The mentioned figures further above in this thread give
> you an idea of the possible financial implications.
>
> https://gdpr-info.eu

When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
far as I remember. So it is the individual who installs it who is
responsible, and GDPR doesn't apply to individuals. Also, when you give
your name and number to people you are leaving them free to do what they
like with it.

I suggest urging people to boycott whatsapp and meta and facebook.

On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:

> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
> far as I remember.

Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
Since never is the answer.

All the whatsapp app needs are only those very few contacts that you want
to use whatsapp to communicate with. Those it needs. None of the others.

It's only people who don't understand how to use the android phone who
blindly give any app, whether whatsapp or otherwise, ALL their contacts.

On 2024-01-21 15:09, Frankie wrote:
> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>
>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>> far as I remember.
>
> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
> Since never is the answer.

WhatsApp asks for permission to access the contact list, of course it does.

You can answer "no", but then the app might not work /properly/.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:

> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>
>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>> far as I remember.
>
> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?

Since when does anyone require whatsapp?

On 21/1/2024, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> WhatsApp asks for permission to access the contact list, of course it does.
>
> You can answer "no", but then the app might not work /properly/.

I understand there are a lot of people who know nothing about Android, and
those are the same people who say yes to everything whatsapp asks of them.

They're the very same people who say yes to all cookies, and who say yes to
all tracking, and who say yes to receiving all those advertisements too.

They don't think.

On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:

>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>
> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?

Depending on where you live, it may be that whatsapp gives you free
communications, so in that sense, whatsapp is a useful app to use.

Given whatsapp can easily be used without giving it all your contacts, the
point I was making was that only people who don't know Android do that.

People don't think. They just give every app everything it asks of them.
Even when whatsapp doesn't need your contacts to communicate with people.

On 2024-01-21 19:05, Richmond wrote:
> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>
>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>> far as I remember.
>>
>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>
> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?

Since probably everybody *here* has it, and basically nobody *here* uses
SMS, and few use alternatives like Signal.

Like I phoned the other day an electrician, he said he would send
someone, and that someone "phoned" me using wasap chat.

Like if I have water leak, and the plumber asks me to send him photos
over wasap.

Like people asking me to send them the invoices over wasap, not email (I
tried email).

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 22.01.24 um 09:33 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2024-01-21 19:05, Richmond wrote:
>> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>>
>>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>>> far as I remember.
>>>
>>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>>
>> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
>
> Since probably everybody *here* has it, and basically nobody *here* uses
> SMS, and few use alternatives like Signal.

*ROTFLSTC*

> Like I phoned the other day an electrician, he said he would send
> someone, and that someone "phoned" me using wasap chat.
>
> Like if I have water leak, and the plumber asks me to send him photos
> over wasap.

Both extremely unprofessional and there are not as many WA-user to force
clients into such a teenager- and houswife-tool.

> Like people asking me to send them the invoices over wasap, not email (I
> tried email).

You are unprofessional as well.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 22.01.24 um 09:33 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> > On 2024-01-21 19:05, Richmond wrote:
> >> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
> >>>> far as I remember.
> >>>
> >>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
> >>
> >> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
> >
> > Since probably everybody *here* has it, and basically nobody *here* uses
> > SMS, and few use alternatives like Signal.
>
> *ROTFLSTC*
>
> > Like I phoned the other day an electrician, he said he would send
> > someone, and that someone "phoned" me using wasap chat.
> >
> > Like if I have water leak, and the plumber asks me to send him photos
> > over wasap.
>
> Both extremely unprofessional and there are not as many WA-user to force
> clients into such a teenager- and houswife-tool.

<barf!>

"not as many WA-user"!?

Well, 75% [1] for our country. That's an awful lot of "teenagers" and
"housewifes". And that's 75% of the *total* population, including
anything from babies to very old people.

But then, we aren't influenced by some silly Swiss guy who thinks he
knows it all and knows best.

<nightmare alert!>

For Switzerland, it's even a bit higher at 76% [3]!

And when talking about penetration rate at 95.9% [5] for Switzerland
(ours is a measly 92.9%), I doubt you'll sleep at all tonight.

> > Like people asking me to send them the invoices over wasap, not email (I
> > tried email).
>
> You are unprofessional as well.

Tell that to - for example - the Dutch railways (NS). They use -
amongst others - it for the *safety* of their passengers. Figure *them*
apples (oops!)!

Or better yet, stop posting nonsense like this, which only makes *you*
look silly, to put it mildly.

[1] 13.3 million [2], for a population of 18 million (Wikipedia).
[2] Two (Dutch) references which show similar numbers:
<https://www.1folders.nl/blog/aantal-whatsapp-gebruikers-nederland-321>
<https://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-in-nederland-2022/>
See also [4].

[3] 6.8 million [4], for a population of 8.9 million (Wikipedia).
[4]
<https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/whatsapp-users-by-country>
[5] <https://www.doofinder.com/en/statistics/who-uses-whatsapp-the-most>

On 2024-01-22 20:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 22.01.24 um 09:33 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>> On 2024-01-21 19:05, Richmond wrote:
>>>> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>>>>> far as I remember.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>>>>
>>>> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
>>>
>>> Since probably everybody *here* has it, and basically nobody *here* uses
>>> SMS, and few use alternatives like Signal.
>>
>> *ROTFLSTC*
>>
>>> Like I phoned the other day an electrician, he said he would send
>>> someone, and that someone "phoned" me using wasap chat.
>>>
>>> Like if I have water leak, and the plumber asks me to send him photos
>>> over wasap.
>>
>> Both extremely unprofessional and there are not as many WA-user to force
>> clients into such a teenager- and houswife-tool.
>
> <barf!>
>
> "not as many WA-user"!?
>
> Well, 75% [1] for our country. That's an awful lot of "teenagers" and
> "housewifes". And that's 75% of the *total* population, including
> anything from babies to very old people.
>
> But then, we aren't influenced by some silly Swiss guy who thinks he
> knows it all and knows best.
>
> <nightmare alert!>
>
> For Switzerland, it's even a bit higher at 76% [3]!
>
> And when talking about penetration rate at 95.9% [5] for Switzerland
> (ours is a measly 92.9%), I doubt you'll sleep at all tonight.
>
>>> Like people asking me to send them the invoices over wasap, not email (I
>>> tried email).
>>
>> You are unprofessional as well.

It is their choice, not mine.

Arguably, wasap is encrypted end to end, while email is not.

Ok, I know email can be encrypted, but nobody uses it. Not banks, not
lawyers, not doctors... I can, but I can not send encrypted email to
someone that has no idea how to set it up. And they do have to set it
up, with personal effort. The best I managed to do is send a password
protected PDF. Encrypted email, only with geeks.

Do I trust wasap encryption? No. But it is better than nothing.

> Tell that to - for example - the Dutch railways (NS). They use -
> amongst others - it for the *safety* of their passengers. Figure *them*
> apples (oops!)!
>
> Or better yet, stop posting nonsense like this, which only makes *you*
> look silly, to put it mildly.
>
> [1] 13.3 million [2], for a population of 18 million (Wikipedia).
> [2] Two (Dutch) references which show similar numbers:
> <https://www.1folders.nl/blog/aantal-whatsapp-gebruikers-nederland-321>
> <https://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/social-media-in-nederland-2022/>
> See also [4].
>
> [3] 6.8 million [4], for a population of 8.9 million (Wikipedia).
> [4]
> <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/whatsapp-users-by-country>
> [5] <https://www.doofinder.com/en/statistics/who-uses-whatsapp-the-most>

Agree to all :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 21.01.24 14:01, Richmond wrote:
> and GDPR doesn't apply to individuals.

But it does to companies giving mout phones.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 21.01.24 19:05, Richmond wrote:
> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>
>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>> far as I remember.
>>
>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>
> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?

Nobody needs Whats App at all.
Certainly not for communication with professional companies and authorities.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-01-23 10:56, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 21.01.24 19:05, Richmond wrote:
>> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>>
>>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>>> far as I remember.
>>>
>>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>>
>> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
>
> Nobody needs Whats App at all.
> Certainly not for communication with professional companies and authorities.

Already debunked.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 23.01.24 11:45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2024-01-23 10:56, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 21.01.24 19:05, Richmond wrote:
>>> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>>>> far as I remember.
>>>>
>>>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>>>
>>> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
>>
>> Nobody needs Whats App at all.
>> Certainly not for communication with professional companies and authorities.
>
> Already debunked.

You are defiant like a little child.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:56:04 +0100, Jörg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:

>On 21.01.24 19:05, Richmond wrote:
>> Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> writes:
>>
>>> On 21/1/2024, Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you install whatsapp you agree to giving it your contacts list as
>>>> far as I remember.
>>>
>>> Since when does whatsapp _require_ your contacts list?
>>
>> Since when does anyone require whatsapp?
>
>Nobody needs Whats App at all.

Nobody needs a cellphone either. Or a credit card, or a car, or
central heating, or most of the clothes people own. One shirt, one pair
of pants, and some shoes. That's all people need.

>Certainly not for communication with professional companies and authorities.

On 1/27/2024 1:00 PM, micky wrote:

> One shirt, one pair of pants, and some shoes. That's all people need.

Ah. Finally someone who went to college!