From: this@ddress.is.invalid
Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-11-28 12:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > On 27.11.25 19:53, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> On 2025-11-27 15:18, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>> On 27.11.25 13:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>> On 2025-11-27 12:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>>>> On 27.11.25 12:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>>>>> I have firefox in private mode as default browser in my phone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At the same time you use WhatsApp?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>
> >>>> To you.
> >>>
> >>> Not at all. It is the contradiction of the worst kind.
> >>> A certain knowledge is necessary to understand this in the first place.
> >>
> >> And the alternative to WhatsApp is... TACHAN!... RCS. :-D
> >
> > *ROTFLSTC*
> >
> > Communication on insecure proprietary channels will never constitute a
> > legally binding contract for anything. It is that simple.
> >
> > And I tell you once more: WA is not permitted to be used in the
> > education sector, public institutions, military and law enforcement for
> > good reasons.
>
> LOL. I know for a fat that the judiciary here is using it. Politicians too.
Indeed, in most European countries it's used in all the sectors which
Jörg mentioned, and much more. And indeed by politicians, including
government (both chambers, cabinet, etc.). Also in public transport
(amongst others report personal abuse).
In the meantime Jörg is spreading FUD and urban legends about
WhatsApp's (ab)use of user's contact lists. One would think that someone
who whines all the time about security, privacy, encryption, etc. would
have a clue about what a hash is, but apparently not.
> Invoices are sent via WhatsApp, too.
[...]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
