Note to Android: Put on your big boy pants and develop a platform people want. Give up the doomed attempt to get Apple to cram your flaws into iOS.
Android are using an industry standard that all carriers use. It's Apple that are being proprietary, refuse to provide access to the iMessage platform and are refusing to adopt the current industry standard in messaging.
And make their own variation. Not always the same in different countries either. It is not a “standard” anymore than iMessage.
why would I want to switch to a system, that is depending on carrier support coming with all the goodies, like potentially being charged extra, lack of support across _all_ carriers?
Note to Android: Put on your big boy pants and develop a platform people want. Give up the doomed attempt to get Apple to cram your flaws into iOS.
Android are using an industry standard that all carriers use. It's Apple that are being proprietary, refuse to provide access to the iMessage platform and are refusing to adopt the current industry standard in messaging.
And make their own variation. Not always the same in different countries either. It is not a “standard” anymore than iMessage.
SMS is a standard.
The SMS standard was invented by 3GPP, a consortium of telecom operators and telecom equipment vendors. France Telecom was the major contributor for SMS. SMS is a teleocm service, requiring telecom equipment in the network of the telecom operator.
iMessage, Whatsapp, signal, ... are smartphone apps , needing no equipment from the teleocm operator. All these apps are encrypted end to end. IMessage has a neat feature that it redirect to SMS service for phone numbers not known in its system. iMessage is by no means a standard.
In the same 3GPP consortium RCS is defined as the successor of SMS. It is again a telecom service, requiring again some telecom infrastructure to function. While almost all telecom operators support the idea the RCS is the successor of SMS, a lot of them are much more reluctant to do the investments, unless it is general considered as the standard.
Exchanging RCS messages between telecom operators has some still interoperability issues, very similar to the issues that SMS initially had. RCS is encrypted gto end user to the telecom operator, not end to end.
Apple has limited interest in RCS, because 2 reasons: Apple has iMessage, which offers the same functionality as RCS and Apple does not like a possible shift in the power balance to the telecom operator
Google does promote RCS: It has no app as successful as iMessage, so it has nothing to loose and in the US, it would reduce one of the advantages of the Apple ecosystem, making Android more competitive
Governments will prefer RCS, because it is not owned by a single company and because it allows, just like with SMS legal intercept. Meaning that with a court order the telecom operator must provide the content and the metadata of the data.
This means that criminals (drugs traffic, international terrorism, child porn, ) won't us it
Avon B7 (presumably reading from the comfort of the Liberator) is right. WhatsApp is the real concern. Apple needs to upgrade iMessage to a multi-platform, worldwide messaging app.
No they don't. Why do they need to do this? iPhone ownership is rising while all other OEMs are reporting declining sales. Why in the world would they risk a winning strategy?
Note to Android: Put on your big boy pants and develop a platform people want. Give up the doomed attempt to get Apple to cram your flaws into iOS.
Android are using an industry standard that all carriers use. It's Apple that are being proprietary, refuse to provide access to the iMessage platform and are refusing to adopt the current industry standard in messaging.
Please stop spreading this bullshit. If RCS was a standard for all carriers then SMS would've disappeared a long time ago. Additionally, the version of RCS that Google is pushing is their proprietary fork of RCS, so the opposite of "standard".
The only apps Apple has on other platforms are ones that it makes money from directly or indirectly.
- iCloud (subscriptions) - Apple Music (subscriptions) - Apple TV (subscriptions) - Beats (for controlling Apple hardware you buy) - Move to iOS (for moving to Apple hardware you buy) - Tracker Detect (for controlling Apple hardware you buy)
Would people be willing to pay a monthly subscription for iMessage on Android? If not, what benefit does Apple gain? They would literally be throwing money away.
If you want to share sensitive information, use Signal. For most people though (especially EU residents) Whatsapp is OK for most of us.
WhatsApp is garbage. It's end-to-end encryption is largely useless because the app backups aren't encrypted by default. It also leaks enormous amounts of metadata to Facebook - who you message, who messages you, what groups you're in, the group names, etc. The FBI found that WhatsApp can deliver data in near real time - see https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/whatsapp-imessage-facebook-apple-fbi-privacy-1261816/. Btw, the same article found iMessage's security was poor because iCloud backups are accessible by Apple.
Signal is the best mainstream messaging app for security.
If you want to share sensitive information, use Signal. For most people though (especially EU residents) Whatsapp is OK for most of us.
WhatsApp is garbage. It's end-to-end encryption is largely useless because the app backups aren't encrypted by default. It also leaks enormous amounts of metadata to Facebook - who you message, who messages you, what groups you're in, the group names, etc. The FBI found that WhatsApp can deliver data in near real time - see https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/whatsapp-imessage-facebook-apple-fbi-privacy-1261816/. Btw, the same article found iMessage's security was poor because iCloud backups are accessible by Apple.
Signal is the best mainstream messaging app for security.
Clicking an option in settings to encrypt backups does not make the app useless.
Most people have zero issues with how meta data is collected.
In the digital age meta data is something we live with without issue but if it is, you don't IM at all or use something like Signal.
That's just wrong. As long as an option isn't enabled by default, the vast majority of users won't enable it. WhatsApp is among the worst messengers from a privacy perspective (see the article I linked).
What is your basis for claiming most people have zero issues with metadata collection? I think a lot of people do care, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. Metadata is extremely sensitive - it reveals people's political and religious affiliations, medical conditions, etc. Using Signal is an excellent suggestion -- once I've championed for a while.
Note to Android: Put on your big boy pants and develop a platform people want. Give up the doomed attempt to get Apple to cram your flaws into iOS.
Android are using an industry standard that all carriers use. It's Apple that are being proprietary, refuse to provide access to the iMessage platform and are refusing to adopt the current industry standard in messaging.
RCS is another Google info vacuum sucking up users private bits.
Funny. Wrong, but funny.
Read more and guess less would be my suggestion. I would presume you know what E2EE is? That's what Apple uses. Google does too.
That's just wrong. As long as an option isn't enabled by default, the vast majority of users won't enable it. WhatsApp is among the worst messengers from a privacy perspective (see the article I linked).
What is your basis for claiming most people have zero issues with metadata collection? I think a lot of people do care, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. Metadata is extremely sensitive - it reveals people's political and religious affiliations, medical conditions, etc. Using Signal is an excellent suggestion -- once I've championed for a while.
Metadata isn't new. It has been around forever.
The only thing that has changed over the years is the granularity, the amount of data that is collected and how it is processed.
Your telephone company has always known who you call. The milkman always knew your food habits. The postman always knew your basic financial status. Your neighbours know an incredible amount about you. Imagine what your local chemist's knows about you.
When things went digital, metadata was the least of our worries as the raw data itself was often being exposed.
That was where legislation and encryption became so important.
If people care about metadata they are not powerless to do anything. There is plenty they can do.
Of course, those that care, take steps but more often than not, those steps will lead to acceptance of concessions in privacy. There is a difference between acceptance and being powerless. If you really are worried about privacy then you are definitely aware of Signal.
Turning on an easily locatable and well described setting in Whatsapp is a non-issue. Yes, it would be better if it were activated by default but the simple process of activating a cloud backup throws that option right into your face.
Once activated, your texts are not really a worry and who you sent them to isn't either.
In my case, Whatsapp doesn't know my political or religious affiliations. It does not even know if I am religious at all.
You're just talking in circles and making excuses for the status quo.
Carissa Véliz in her book _Privacy is Power_ makes a compelling argument -- that by allowing yourself to be profiled, you also allow your contacts to be profiled. WhatsApp knows who is your contact list; they know who you talk to and when you talk to them; then know what groups you're in, when those groups were created, and who created them. It's easy for Meta to link identifiers across apps, build profiles on users, and link those profiles based on metadata.
Regarding backups -- I don't understand what you're trying to say. If encryption is not enabled by default, then it's useless. I'd bet that virtually no one uses Secret Chats in Telegram or Facebook Messenger, or encrypted backups in WhatsApp. How many people open their WhatsApp settings at all? And even if someone enabled encrypted backups for themself, that does not protect their communication. If the other people they message don't enable encrypted backups, then their chats are still at risk. Defaults matter.
Comments
SMS is a standard.
https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-atandt-t-mobile-blow-rcs-launch/d/d-id/768729
why would I want to switch to a system, that is depending on carrier support coming with all the goodies, like potentially being charged extra, lack of support across _all_ carriers?
It's all about convenience and relative privacy.
If you want to share sensitive information, use Signal. For most people though (especially EU residents) Whatsapp is OK for most of us.
The only apps Apple has on other platforms are ones that it makes money from directly or indirectly.
- iCloud (subscriptions)
- Apple Music (subscriptions)
- Apple TV (subscriptions)
- Beats (for controlling Apple hardware you buy)
- Move to iOS (for moving to Apple hardware you buy)
- Tracker Detect (for controlling Apple hardware you buy)
Would people be willing to pay a monthly subscription for iMessage on Android? If not, what benefit does Apple gain? They would literally be throwing money away.
Signal is the best mainstream messaging app for security.
Most people have zero issues with how meta data is collected.
In the digital age meta data is something we live with without issue but if it is, you don't IM at all or use something like Signal.
What is your basis for claiming most people have zero issues with metadata collection? I think a lot of people do care, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. Metadata is extremely sensitive - it reveals people's political and religious affiliations, medical conditions, etc. Using Signal is an excellent suggestion -- once I've championed for a while.
Read more and guess less would be my suggestion. I would presume you know what E2EE is? That's what Apple uses. Google does too.
The only thing that has changed over the years is the granularity, the amount of data that is collected and how it is processed.
Your telephone company has always known who you call. The milkman always knew your food habits. The postman always knew your basic financial status. Your neighbours know an incredible amount about you. Imagine what your local chemist's knows about you.
When things went digital, metadata was the least of our worries as the raw data itself was often being exposed.
That was where legislation and encryption became so important.
If people care about metadata they are not powerless to do anything. There is plenty they can do.
Of course, those that care, take steps but more often than not, those steps will lead to acceptance of concessions in privacy. There is a difference between acceptance and being powerless. If you really are worried about privacy then you are definitely aware of Signal.
Turning on an easily locatable and well described setting in Whatsapp is a non-issue. Yes, it would be better if it were activated by default but the simple process of activating a cloud backup throws that option right into your face.
Once activated, your texts are not really a worry and who you sent them to isn't either.
In my case, Whatsapp doesn't know my political or religious affiliations. It does not even know if I am religious at all.
Carissa Véliz in her book _Privacy is Power_ makes a compelling argument -- that by allowing yourself to be profiled, you also allow your contacts to be profiled. WhatsApp knows who is your contact list; they know who you talk to and when you talk to them; then know what groups you're in, when those groups were created, and who created them. It's easy for Meta to link identifiers across apps, build profiles on users, and link those profiles based on metadata.
Regarding backups -- I don't understand what you're trying to say. If encryption is not enabled by default, then it's useless. I'd bet that virtually no one uses Secret Chats in Telegram or Facebook Messenger, or encrypted backups in WhatsApp. How many people open their WhatsApp settings at all? And even if someone enabled encrypted backups for themself, that does not protect their communication. If the other people they message don't enable encrypted backups, then their chats are still at risk. Defaults matter.