AJL <noemail@none.com> writes:

> On 3/14/24 4:18 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>AJL <noemail@none.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/14/24 3:03 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>AJL <noemail@none.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/24 2:08 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I mostly use Firefox Focus with Javascript disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you use the Samsung browser you can disable both Javascript AND
>>>>> all cookies. Likewise with the Dolphin browser.
>>>>
>>>>Did you read the privacy policy? "We care about your privacy. We
>>>>transfer data to up to 277 third party providers..." :?
>>>
>>> Are you Arlen in disguise? Sorry, an inside joke. All I use the
>>> Samsung browser for is news reading. I leave the Javascript and
>>> cookies off to kill the pop-ups and other junk but leave the text and
>>> most still photos. If some alien computers are spying on what fake
>>> name AJL is reading it really doesn't bother me too much. But then
>>> AJL's paranoia level is pretty much nonexistant...
>>
>>Not quite non existent if you are using a fake name. Did you walk into a
>>shop and pay cash for a second hand phone? buy your SIM card for 99p in
>>a supermarket?
>
> I'm not using a phone. I use this tablet for news reading. But even if I
> did, do you really think a browser knows and reports my sim??

It seems unlikely, but then I didn't say that. What I was thinking was
that Samsung would be able to identify you if you ordered the phone
(or device) and had it delivered to your house. Samsung might also be
able to pick up your phone number from your SIM card (if you had one)
and use that together with contact information from others to find your
name. I don't know if they actually do that or have any interest in
knowing who you are, they could sell advertising just with some unique
identifier. But they have tailored android and could have put stuff in
there to get information.

>Yup, you're
> either Arlen or Maryana for sure. I can tell by the paranoia level.
> Confess... ;)

I don't know how paranoid he is, but I use google chrome on my desktop
and I have even switched on their new ad choices thing, which I think is
quite a good solution to the problem of selling personalised advertising
without tracking. If I want to look up my medical conditions, or
anything which I think the government should not be so nosey (snoopers
charter) about, then I use TOR.

On 3/14/2024 6:26 PM, Richmond wrote:

> What I was thinking was that Samsung would be able to identify you if
> you ordered the phone (or device) and had it delivered to your
> house.

Guess I'm safe then. I got my Samsung phone from the Verizon store. Whew...

> Samsung might also be able to pick up your phone number from your SIM
> card (if you had one) and use that together with contact information
> from others to find your name. I don't know if they actually do that
> or have any interest in knowing who you are, they could sell
> advertising just with some unique identifier. But they have tailored
> android and could have put stuff in there to get information.

All of the above: Complete guesswork on your part.

> I use google chrome on my desktop and I have even switched on their
> new ad choices thing, which I think is quite a good solution to the
> problem of selling personalized advertising without tracking.

I've been using Google a very long time now. Many years ago Gmail (in a
browser) actually did have ads. But in recent years I've not been able
to tie any ads directly to my Google account. Out of sight out of mind...

> If I want to look up my medical conditions, or anything which I think
> the government should not be so nosy (snoopers charter) about, then I
> use TOR.

Paranoia in spades...

On 3/14/2024 11:20 AM, Andrew wrote:

> And what's "pathetic" is the (paraphrased) claim that AJL's medical
> data is as important as AJL's Samsung app to turn the WI-Fi off

I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.

> - and worse - they're so equal in AJL's mindset that he feels he MUST
> store all his medical data on his phone.

I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.

> AJL then extended that same argument to his credit card and then to
> his bank accounts - but the argument that they're as important as a
> silly Samsung app that isn't even needed is - is only 1/3rd of what's
> absurd.

I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.

> The other 1/3 which is absurd is that AJL just gave up because he
> considers all data of equal importance, and the last 1/3rd is as a
> result, AJL feels he MUST put all his data on his smartphone (which
> has no IT department).

I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.

Are you related to Carlos? He put words in my mouth too (and couldn't
find the quotes)...

Andrew wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:49:52 -0000 (UTC) :

> The Notification log brings up this Android activity in my shortcut.
> com.android.settings/com.android.settings.Settings$NotificationStationActivity
>
> The Notification history brings up this Android activity in my shortcut.
> com.android.settings/com.android.settings.notification.history.NotificationHistoryActivity
>
> Please keep in mind that any setting you use more than once a day
> you probably want to put into a folder of shortcuts for easy access.

I realize 999 out of 1,000 people have no idea how to create a one-tap
shortcut to any public activity in Android, but even though most people are
ignorant, it's very useful to make one-tap shortcuts to public activities
which are five levels deep or even those which are hidden from the GUI.

But it's useful to know for that 1 out of 1,000 people who are smart enough
to learn how to make an Android shortcut - which no marketing tells you how
to do it (so those who only do what marketing feeds them, won't know it).

However, since making efficient one-tap shortcuts is de rigueur for
anything you use more than once a day, here's what those two notification
shortcuts look like on my phone (I put both of them into my shortcuts
folder in the dock along with myriad privacy related shortcuts & others).

<https://i.postimg.cc/6Q5W7QR8/onetapnotificationshortcuts.jpg>

AJL wrote on Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:40:30 -0700 :

> I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.

Bet you I can.

From: AJL <noemail@none.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Samsung account
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:15 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ustdd7$1772n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <86il1qmd9v.fsf@example.com>

On 3/13/2024 3:37 PM, Andrew wrote:
> AJL wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:24:34 -0700 :

> And yet, since marketing tells people what to do and they do it, I'm sure
> there are millions of Samsung Accounts gathering data every single day.

Do you use a credit card? Go to the doctor? Have a bank account? Have a
cell phone? Etc etc. Unless you live in a cave your life is already
online. Samsung is just one of hundreds... (And worse, unlike Samsung,
my bank, doctor, CC, etc all know my real name)... 8-O

> I just happen to not want to trade my privacy for what marketing wants me
> to do (and which I can get, anyway, without trading it for my privacy).

Online privacy in the modern world?? I could have total privacy by
putting on the blinders too...

On 3/14/2024 11:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
> AJL wrote on Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:40:30 -0700 :
>
>> I didn't say that. Bet you can't find a quote.
>
> Bet you I can.

But you didn't. See below.

> From: AJL <noemail@none.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
> Subject: Re: Samsung account
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:38:15 -0700
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <ustdd7$1772n$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <86il1qmd9v.fsf@example.com>
>
> On 3/13/2024 3:37 PM, Andrew wrote:
> > AJL wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:24:34 -0700 :
>
> > And yet, since marketing tells people what to do and they do it, I'm sure
> > there are millions of Samsung Accounts gathering data every single day.
>
> Do you use a credit card? Go to the doctor? Have a bank account? Have a
> cell phone? Etc etc. Unless you live in a cave your life is already
> online. Samsung is just one of hundreds... (And worse, unlike Samsung,
> my bank, doctor, CC, etc all know my real name)... 8-O

Quotes from Andrew's prior post that he said AJL said:

- And what's "pathetic" is the (paraphrased) claim that AJL's medical
- data is as important as AJL's Samsung app to turn the WI-Fi off

Nothing about comparing the importance of my medical data to a Samsung
app in that paragraph you quoted above. Flunk 1.

- and worse - they're so equal in AJL's mindset that he feels he MUST
- store all his medical data on his phone.

Nothing about putting my medical data on my phone (I don't BTW) in that
paragraph. Flunk 2.

- AJL then extended that same argument to his credit card and then to
- his bank accounts - but the argument that they're as important as a
- silly Samsung app that isn't even needed is - is only 1/3rd of what's
- absurd.

Nothing about the importance of my CC compared to the Samsung app in
that paragraph. Flunk 3.

- The other 1/3 which is absurd is that AJL just gave up because he
- considers all data of equal importance, and the last 1/3rd is as a
- result, AJL feels he MUST put all his data on his smartphone (which
- has no IT department).

And a smartphone isn't even mentioned in that paragraph (and I don't put
all my data on my phone, how did you ever come up with that? And IT
department??). Flunk 4.

So, you get a big fat ZERO.

> > I just happen to not want to trade my privacy for what marketing wants me
> > to do (and which I can get, anyway, without trading it for my privacy).

My point was (and is) that your personal data is spread among many
online servers whether you like it or not. Do income tax? Trust the
government servers? Go to the doctor? Trust that server? All the office
personnel have access. Use a credit card? Their servers know your
complete shopping habits. Some CC companies give your personal data to
the stores you use the card at for their advertising use. Your cell
phone company knows your call history. Your Voicemail is on their
servers. New cars broadcast lots of data. I just got a notice from my
dealer that my car told them I need an oil change. So as I was trying to
say, a fake Samsung account is small privacy potatoes compared to what's
already out there. I could go on and on with more examples but I hope
you get the picture this time. I repeat, unless you live in a cave you
really have no privacy these days...

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>
> > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> I think it is strange that Samsung's Internet Browser is even in the
> >> google store.
> >
> > Because people might want to put it on their non-Samsung phones
> > (which won't have the (Samsung) Galaxy Store).
>
> When I search for Google Chrome in the Samsung store it finds Samsung
> Internet.

That's to be expected, because Google Chrome is - obviously - a Google
app and hence in the (Google) Play Store, not in the (Samsung) Galaxy
Store

> When I press and hold the samsung phone app, select info, scroll down,
> view in app store, I get a message saying "this content isn't compatible
> with your phones operating system". So where did it come from? How does
> it get updated?

That's strange! I get no such message and the 'App info' screen of the
(Samsung) Phone app says

"App details in store
App downloaded from Galaxy Srore"

which is exactly what one would expect.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 14 Mar 2024 20:06:51 GMT :
>
> > You're correct, I couldn't find it in Settings either. So apparently
> > Another Poster (TM) was wrong. No surprise there, he's been wrong
> > before.
>
> The fact you've never once in your entire life found me wrong, Frank, and
> yet you're so obviously _desperate_ to do so, is a problem that you have.

We've shown you wrong many, many times. That you refuse to acknowledge
that you were wrong and play your dodge and divert spiel, doesn't mean
you weren't wrong. Case in point: AJL's beating in this very thread.

> FACT:
> The option to turn on (or off) Wi-Fi calling is on my Samsung phone.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/4dgCbg1t/wificalling01.jpg>
>
> And there is no Samsung Account (or any account) set up on my phone.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/RhxFjhz0/manage-accounts.jpg>

As the other response have shown, there's an - as yet unexplained -
difference between our phones:

- You have the setting on your Android 13 T-Mobile USA phone (which
Samsung model?).

- Richmond didn't have the setting on his Android 13 phone (which
model?), but now it's on Android 14, he does have the setting.

- I don't have the setting on my (Samsung Galaxy A51) Android 13 phone.

The location where you have the 'Wi-Fi Calling' switch, on the
Connections page, between 'Wi-Fi' and 'Bluetooth', I have nothing,
i.e. 'Wi-Fi' at the top and then 'Bluetooth' directly below it.

Also the text labels on items are different between you and me, so I
think it's a question of different models (or 'ages'?) of Samsung
phones rather than Android versions.

Bottom line: In this case, everybody was right, for *their* phone.

AJL wrote on Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:18:11 -0700 :

> Nothing about the importance of my CC compared to the Samsung app in
> that paragraph.

Idiot. You are like nospam where you own a kindergarten mentality that
doesn't even realize your arguments are preposterously inconsistent.

A. We're discussing the utility of Samsung apps versus loss of privacy.
B. You're the idiot who equated that to bank, cc & medical records.
C. I simply said your comparative argument is preposterously absurd.

If you didn't want to bring the credit cards, banking records and medical
records into the comparison of the utility versus loss of privacy, then
it's your fault for being the child-like idiot who did that.

You can have the last word since it's you who is the child-like idiot.
(Bring Frank Slootweg along with you since he agreed with your idiocy.)

Frank Slootweg wrote on 15 Mar 2024 15:37:12 GMT :

> We've shown you wrong many, many times.

No you haven't.
In fact, you've _never_ shown my facts to be wrong.

You're actually _desperate_ to find a fact I've said that is wrong.
And yet, in all these years - you can't find a single time that happened.

You just can't.
Because it never happened.

See below for what you erroneously "think" is a fact, but, which is, in
realilty, an assessment of a fact.

1. No adult disagrees with a fact except for a fool, Frank.
2. Yet, adults very often disagree on _assessments_ of that fact.

You, Frank, do not know the difference between:
a. Fact
b. Assessment of fact

And yet, it's the first thing taught in a basic college logic class, Frank.
(Did you even go to college?)

I don't know what's wrong with the educational system where you came from,
but you constantly fabricate things that you can't ever back up.

You've never shown my facts to be wrong simply because I don't say things
are facts unless I already know them to be facts. You're not like that.

You're to the left of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger scale, where you
say things that you firmly believe are facts - and yet - you're wrong.

> That you refuse to acknowledge
> that you were wrong and play your dodge and divert spiel, doesn't mean
> you weren't wrong. Case in point: AJL's beating in this very thread.

Look Frank. Your IQ is low. Very low. And you lack education.
You're no different than AJL or Joerg Lorenz, Frank.

Your argument is preposterous, and easily shown to be absurd.
A. We're were discussing the utility of Samsung apps versus privacy.
B. AJL was the idiot who equated that to bank, cc & medical records.
C. I simply said AJL's comparative argument is preposterously absurd.

If AJL didn't want to bring the credit cards, banking records and medical
records into the comparison of the utility versus loss of privacy, then
it's AJL's fault for equating them to the Samsung Account privacy loss.

That you can't comprehend an argument that simple, logical & eminently
defensible, means you don't own the cognitive skills I expect of an adult.

Bear in mind you lack the education and/or IQ to tell the difference
between a fact and an assessment of that fact.

FACT:
It was AJL who brought up credit/medical/bank in to counter the argument
that the loss of privacy from Samsung Accounts isn't worth the
concomitant gain in functionality.

ASSESSMENT OF THAT FACT:
AJL was clearly equating the gain in functionality versus loss of
privacy

Another ASSESSMENT:
AJL's argument is preposterously absurd because he's equating the
gain in functionality of bank/credit/medical records to the gain
in functionality of a silly meaningless Samsung app,.

Another assessment:
The REASON AJL brought up that absurd argument is he inherently
knew that there was nothing to be gained by the silly Samsung
app - so - he wanted to elevate the gain vs loss of privacy
equation to the highest level - which is _why_ he brought up
Last assessment:
AJL's argument is preposterous. The astoundingly huge difference
in utility between bank/credit/medical records and a silly Samsung
app makes AJL's comparison absurd.

Clearly, you don't have the IQ nor education to agree with my assessment of
the facts, Frank - but even you (unless you're a fool) won't disagree with
the facts that they're based upon.

>> FACT:
>> The option to turn on (or off) Wi-Fi calling is on my Samsung phone.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/4dgCbg1t/wificalling01.jpg>
>>
>> And there is no Samsung Account (or any account) set up on my phone.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/RhxFjhz0/manage-accounts.jpg>
>
> As the other response have shown, there's an - as yet unexplained -
> difference between our phones:

Duh. There will ALWAYS be (huge) differences between Android phones.
The make, model, OS version, carrier, launcher, customizations, etc.

Tell me something I don't know, Frank.

> Bottom line: In this case, everybody was right, for *their* phone.

In another thread today, you apparently surmised that you don't have wifi
and cellular data listed by default for every app on your phone, and yet I
do. Message-ID: <ut1vko.jks.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

Why is it that I have on my Galaxy what you can't even find on yours?
<https://i.postimg.cc/4y4JCRXY/datausage.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5wKFfsL/appdatausage.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/qMM7Sy71/billingcycle.jpg>

Note: Unlike you, I don't say things are facts without them being facts.
Only a fool disagrees with facts (that's why they're fools after all).

If you "think" I've said a fact wrong, then you're wrong.
But if you disagree with my assessments of facts - that's perfectly normal.

You don't have the IQ I have.
You don't have the education I have.
You don't have the mentality I have in always being right on facts, Frank.

You just don't.
You wish you were in my league, but you're no different than Jeorg Lorenz.
--
Those are assessments based on your own words, Frank.

On 3/15/24 11:36 AM, Andrew wrote:

>Idiot. You are like nospam where you own a kindergarten mentality...

>it's your fault for being the child-like idiot who did that...

>You can have the last word since it's you who is the child-like idiot...

>(Bring Frank Slootweg along with you since he agreed with your idiocy.)

Ah. The old Arlen is back. Can't refute logical statements then dispurse
insults. Andrew did pretty well for awhile. I had hopes. But it was not to
be.

BTW thanks for the comparison to nospam. A compliment I don't deserve. He
was way more technically inclined than I am. I'm sorry he's apparently no
longer around.

So I have the last word you say? My last word is please ignore me in the
future. Bet you can't...