You definitely shouldn’t invest time in SMS. Without RCS (or some custom messaging protocol support), “texting apps” are pretty much a dead market.
RCS is both more secure and more user friendly than SMS can be by design. Once the iPhone gets RCS support in the coming months/years, this will be especially true.
If you message cross-platform from Android to iOS, and you can’t get everyone to agree upon a 3rd party app, then you’re kind of stuck with sms. This isn’t a problem that is going away in the near future. Apple relies on their locked messaging platform to influence their users into thinking iOS is the best. The users then pressure all of their friends to get iPhones too. It’s an effective strategy for them. Very few iPhone users seem to understand the games being played.
In fairness, even the author of the article you linked didn’t think that’d ever happen. I’m somewhat up to date on most general tech things and missed this announcement too (though to be honest I don’t follow Apple announcements anyway).
You’re right, I’ve updated my reply… Hopefully someday that will be a generic RCS feature not exclusive to Google and/or Apple and Google will work to make the E2EE work between their two systems.
Plenty of services still unfortunately rely on SMS for 2FA, so we’ll still need a client to receive them. Doesn’t really need to be able to send them though, I don’t think any human has sent an SMS message deliberately for about 12 years!
I don’t know anyone in Canada that isn’t a new Canadian that uses anything other than the default sms app on their phone. (FBM and Insta and what not don’t count in my example).
I don’t know about the underlying technology, but every client I’ve used for the past couple decades supported groups.
However, they absolutely sucked. There was no way to leave. Unless someone made a new group without you and everyone used that, you’d keep getting messages.
More seriously, in these cases, I often rely on emails instead. But I don’t really use group chats a lot (even with my contacts that are on Signal), nor send many files, so it’s not features I really miss. And SMS works with everyone, so it’s always my default if the contact isn’t on Signal.
Group chats work over SMS. I use cloud links for large files or just SMS/MMS for pictures and you just live with the low quality if texting with an iPhone user.
I’ve never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something. I know I never have and never will, I actually stay away from things that are advertised to me. So these fucking brainless fucks are literally wasting their money and energy on ads. Every human being I know loaths ads and would love to erase them from existence. When will they ever get this?
When I was a kid there were some things I’d see and wanted, only to get them and be seriously disappointed. I learned quickly that ads are fluff.
Nowadays, I actively stay away from things I’ve seen advertised. The way I see it is if a company has to pay tons of money to get their product seen, it can’t be all that good to start with. Genuinely good products don’t need to try and convince you they’re worth it.
You are generalizing too much here. I know many who have tried out a product only after seeing its ad. Ads can give plenty of returns to brands. But targeted ads which even exploits our most intimate conversations are really bad news for our right to privacy.
Ive absolutely bought shit that ended up as an embedded ad after I visited the page previously. Youre just more likely to follow through if you see it over and over again.
If you say generalize within my circle of people that I know then yes I agree with you, but generalizing in general means everyone, even those I don’t know and have never met, and I didn’t say that. So, literally not yes. lol
so then your argument is companies are wasting money because you and your circle aren't affected by advertising? how big is your circle that companies should fear not appealling to it?
This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense. That everyone has just been bamboozled. That's a naive view, I think.
The best argument for why we must be vigilant against ads and data collection by advertisers is because the shit does work. It influences people to make purchases, sometimes against their better judgement or reason. Because subverting someone's agency over their own body and mind is heinous at a very high level.
I'm certain you are wrong. You've absolutely purchased products that were advertised to you. You just didn't make the connection between your decision and the advertisements. You THINK seeing an ad makes you unlikely to buy a product, but you likely only really notice and have an emotional response to the ads for products you weren't likely to buy in the first place.
This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense.
Strangers things have happened than money being thrown at bullshit.
All the industry analysis of the ROI on advertising would've had to come to the same spurious conclusions about that effectiveness, too. With the largest, richest, and most profitable firms being the ones MOST fooled.
No, I don't think anything that strange has ever happened. This is basically a conspiracy theory.
You've literally just described your own view as believing in a grand conspiracy where all players have sworn themselves to secrecy in a scheme any one of them could undermine in a moment, so I guess that's that.
What phone do you hve? What computer? What shoes? What milk do you buy? Ads dont work by showing up and making you go buy it like a drone. You see the ads a thousand times and then you start believing its better than other products
Or even as subtle as brand recognition. Nobody can research every purchase and when you walk walk up to two items and one sounds familiar. You’re more likely to buy that one.
I’ve gotten a type of product I didn’t know existed before, but it’s never been the brand that alerted me to it. From experiences, brands that advertise generally have the lower quality and less value for money product. Brands that don’t advertise but you frequently see mentioned are generally the top tier shit for quality and value and they don’t need to advertise.
I’ve never met a person in my life that was convinced by an ad to buy something.
I believe that you’re being truthful, but I respectfully challenge the idea that you don’t know some person who was convinced by an ad to buy something. Even if all your friends truthfully insist that their decisions are not swayed by ads, there is probably some product they chose at least partially because an advertisement reached them and left a positive impression about the product.
Ads do clearly work on people who are suggestible enough to be susceptible to them. Some of your contacts are probably these people whether they admit to it or not. If ads didn’t work, they wouldn’t be made. Ads aren’t made inherently to be annoying or make our lives worse; they’re driven by profit. Kill the profit and the motive dies. IMO that’s all the more reason to get rid of them.
Anecdotally, my parents and grandmother watch TV with commercials, and they give me a bug-eyed look when I explain to them that I don’t get advertisements and that I don’t want to see them. Most people I know just want to get content crammed down their content-holes and will deal with ads to avoid the momentary inconvenience of change. So I feel like we’re fighting an uphill battle.
Ads only work when you are searching them out yourself. Like, if i go to steam looking to buy a new game I’d be susceptible to a video game ad. And ads for established brands are complete wastes of money, I’m not gonna buy a coke because i saw an ad for it.
Except the device is already in your home, and most people leave their account logged in. That’s basically like you inviting someone into your house, they hang out in your spare bedroom…and they’re still there. So no need to re-grant consent to a situation that hasn’t changed. Unless you mean it auto-logs out (or you log out) and have to re-grant consent then? Most do require consent on logging in, and the average consumer would hate having to log in every time and would probably use weak passwords because of this.
But, you can at least kick them out (revoke consent).
I just don’t see how a proper law/regulation would fix/restrict this, except to make certain personalization attempts (targeted ads) illegal.
Except the device is already in your home, and most people leave their account logged in.
People buy products to serve a purpose to themselves and their family, so yes, the device is in their home FOR THEIR USE.
Being logged in isn’t an open invitation to be spied, so laws need to address that.
That’s basically like you inviting someone into your house, they hang out in your spare bedroom…and they’re still there.
The invite, in this case, is not for a company to spy on you and your family. I don’t think anyone would actually want that, especially not for the purpose of targeting them with ads.
People use voice activated devices, which do record and react to voice prompt, but the permission here is given only for that use. A company shouldn’t be able to say “hey, you can use the service you’ve paid for, and by agreeing to use that service, you also agree to give us permission to digitally invade your home and privacy.”
I just don’t see how a proper law/regulation would fix/restrict this, except to make certain personalization attempts (targeted ads) illegal.
Yes, make it illegal. And make everything opt-in without strings attached (i.e. if you agree to use the service you paid for, you agree to being spied on).
I will personally continue to use my wallet to yield power. I won’t buy devices or support companies who are evil, and will support companies who respect privacy and data freedom. The whole enshitification of the digital landscape is incredibly sad to see, TBH.
It is crazy how in a country where everyone sues everyone all the time things like that happen. I had assumed that such a system would lead to a more robust system where every manager to ceo is vetting their business against these problems to not get sued. Apparently the liberal system of suing anyone all the time does not at all replaces a governmental body that defines strong consumer protection rights. Reading this, Turbotax and Wells Fargo News teaches me that a suing society is not cleansing itself from predatory behaviour.
Here is a list of the top 5 most litigious countries by capita: 1. Germany: 123.2/1,000 2. Sweden: 111.2/1,000 3. Israel: 96.8/1,000 4. Austria: 95.9/1,000 5. U.S.: 74.5/1,000. The Top 10 also includes the UK (64.4); Denmark (62.5); Hungary (52.4); Portugal (40.7); and France (40.3).
As you can see, the risk of lawsuits in the U.S. is less than in Germany, Sweden, Israel, and Austria, and not much greater than the other countries listed in the top 10. Simply stated, Americans are not as litigious as many believe. While the large verdict against McDonalds for serving hot coffee received enormous publicity, that judgment was significantly reduced on appeal and the plaintiff spent the left of her life being ridiculed.
How can they technically do that? They would need their own app because Android by itself isn’t listening (it does while using voice command). And why would they say they can while it’s against the law to do it (at least in Europe, but I guess in the USA too).
Yeah it sounds sus. Apple themselves published an explanation of how siri doesn’t actively listen to you all the time, so I’m not sure how they can bypass that.
When you speak to Google services, Google uses its audio recognition technologies to process your audio and respond to you. For example, if you touch the mic icon to search by voice, Google’s audio recognition technologies translate what you say into words and phrases that Search looks up in an index to give you the most relevant results.
Web & App Activity saves things you do on Google sites, apps, and services in your Google Account on Google servers and can include associated info like location. Certain interactions may not be saved.
This optional voice and audio activity setting lets you also save audio recordings with Web & App Activity when you interact with Google Search, Assistant, and Maps. This setting is off unless you choose to turn it on
And here’s what I saw on a comment from another post about this. From arstechnica:
The company added that it does not “listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement” and “regret[s] any confusion.”
Regulation “may” fail to keep up with the technology?
lol regulation is always done after the fact—if it all. In the EU, yeah, there’s a chance it gets done eventually. The US lol. Regulation is about 44 years behind.
If your phone has the capability to have a parental control / monitoring mode on it enabled, which can see everything you are doing on the phone, hear what youre saying and see what the cameras see and know your GPS location… and hide all of this to the user…
Why wouldnt ad companies also pay for such a live feed, or at least parts of it, if the software and hardware capabilities already exist?
People have been reporting getting advertisements based on conversations they were having 10 minutes ago with a person next to their phone for years.
Well, all phones with Google’s Android do, and probably all iPhones too, though I am not an iPhone user so I cannot speak from personal experience on iPhones.
My brother, last year, decided to engage parental control on my android phone and used it to stalk me on foot and in his car.
He was the head of the TMobile family plan we were on. I talked to TMobile employees at different locations many times about this. They tried to helo me, but because I was not the head of the plan, the tech support people that the instore agents had to call to try to fix my situation wouldnt do anything.
At one point a T Mobile employee told me to call the police… on T Mobile.
But uh yeah everything on stock android is connected to a google account, and TMobile and Google apparently just presume that any one not the head of a family plan are children, and will allow parental control to be enabled /without informing the ‘child’/.
I worked at a pharmacy and the only time it actually happened was when a patient tried to sell their Vicodin to an undercover cop outside the store. The cop came in and asked for the information about the prescription and we gave it to him.
Yeah, I didn’t say any of that but ok. HIPAA/employers actually require you to give law enforcement information in a variety of situations, including specifically the situation I mentioned:
To report PHI that the covered entity in good faith believes to be evidence of a crime that occurred on the covered entity’s premises (45 CFR 164.512(f)(5)).
Is that without a warrant? It wouldn’t be hard to impersonate a cop or even a cop with a grudge against someone to come find out what medications they are taking to dig further into someone’s lives and ruin said life.
Yes, without a warrant. It’s in the Privacy Notice in any retail pharmacy.
Impersonating a cop is a pretty big step that’s illegal in its own right but we did have moms trying to see if their adult daughter was on birth control, but that’s pretty easy to stop. Just lock their profile and ask the patient to make up a passcode or only deal with them in person.
Q: I got a prompt asking me to grant permission for the app to access my location. Why am I seeing this?
A: You will see a prompt from the Authenticator app asking for access to your location if your IT admin has created a policy requiring you to share your GPS location before you are allowed to access specific resources. You’ll need to share your location once every hour to ensure you are still within a country where you are allowed to access the resource.
And? I don’t give a shit what the admins of my network want. It’s DFA – they don’t deserve to know that. Ergo, I don’t use the MS app. They can kiss my ass and fire me if they don’t trust where I am.
It’s a security / compliance policy. There is a very high chance your company has not even enabled it, have not seen anyone using it.
As I see it, you would and could use it only if you force MS Authenticator notification as the only MFA method and it is important in which country MFA prompt originates. Usually it is IP based block / whitelist which checks IP from which login originates which seems like a much more useful info, then you can also allow any MFA method.
Your question was why GPS permission is needed, you should now know why.
I am using MS Authenticator and Aegis. Using MS authenticator only for work accounts that have been setup for number matching feature, it is pretty nice to simply enter 2 digits in app than entering 6 digits in client itself any time you need to approve MFA.
Everything else that supports standard TOTP whether work related or personal is on Aegis - it is a much better TOTP app.
That depends. More of the popular ones don’t encrypt the secret keys, they can just be read out with root access or even with the use of ADB (the pull command), not even speaking about reading the memory contents while booted to a recovery.
Some even uploads the keys to a cloud service for convenience, and they consider it a feature.
Sounds more like a bad design than purposefully left backdoors. Very few devices are rooted and usually you cannot get root without fully wiping your device in process. As for cloud upload, that indeed is convenient for most regular users. I prefer encrypted offline backup like Aegis does, but you need to think about regular folk if they would loose or wipe their device.
It’s not bad design, it’s definitely intentional, however I agree that it’s probably not for having backdoors, but for convenience. Average people forget their passwords all the time, and with encryption that level of carelessness is fatal to your data if they have not saved it somewhere, which they probably didn’t do.
Very few devices are rooted and usually you cannot get root without fully wiping your device in process.
I’m pretty sure the system is not flawless. Probably it’s harder to find an exploit in the OS than it was years ago, but I would be surprised if it would be really rare. Also, I think a considerable amount of people use the cheapest phones of no name brands (even if not in your country), or even just tablets that haven’t received updates for years and are slow but “good for use at home”. I have one at home that I rarely use. Bootloader cannot be unlocked, but there’s a couple of exploits available for one off commands and such.
privacyguides
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.