From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Carlos E. R. <[email protected]d> wrote:

On 2026-02-13 18:34, Maria Sophia wrote:

[...]

That's your claim, and we do not accept it. We are all respectful of
other people privacy when using the Android contact app.

I think it's rather disrespectful of 'Arlen' to put the names and
e-mail addresses of his contacts "on the cloud".

And no 'Arlen', this is not trolling, this is just exposing the
inconsistency in your argument.

And yes 'Arlen', I've made this argument before and you ignored it and silently snipped it. We wonder why.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank Slootweg wrote:

That's your claim, and we do not accept it. We are all respectful of
other people privacy when using the Android contact app.

I think it's rather disrespectful of 'Arlen' to put the names and
e-mail addresses of his contacts "on the cloud".

And no 'Arlen', this is not trolling, this is just exposing the inconsistency in your argument.

And yes 'Arlen', I've made this argument before and you ignored it and silently snipped it. We wonder why.

Hi Frank,

You are misrepresenting what I actually do with contacts.

My setup is simple. The system contacts database on my phone is empty
and I use a separate, sandboxed contacts app which stores its data in
its own database. That means the many packages with read permission
on the system contacts provider have nothing at all to read.

I do not store my contacts in any public cloud service. If you have a
specific quote where I said otherwise, please feel free to point to it.

If you see a technical inconsistency in that model, describe it in
concrete terms and we can talk about it. Personal remarks about my
respect for privacy do not change how the data flows actually work.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:

[Carlos' missing attribution.]

That's your claim, and we do not accept it. We are all respectful of
other people privacy when using the Android contact app.

I think it's rather disrespectful of 'Arlen' to put the names and
e-mail addresses of his contacts "on the cloud".

And no 'Arlen', this is not trolling, this is just exposing the inconsistency in your argument.

And yes 'Arlen', I've made this argument before and you ignored it and silently snipped it. We wonder why.

Hi Frank,

You are misrepresenting what I actually do with contacts.

Nope, I'm not, but you're so caught up in the phone/phone-number
contacts part that you do not even (seem to) realize that you put the
names and e-mail addresses of your contacts "on the cloud".

[...]

I do not store my contacts in any public cloud service.

Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a
public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is
as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't
(want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.

[...]
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is
as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't (want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.

That's not the way I read it. I read it as he doesn't use the contacts
app, he puts his contacts somewhere else, presumably somewhere which is
not stored or backed up to the cloud. (Although Google Contacts are
encrypted in the cloud anyway, so it is only on the phone where apps
have permission to read them that it matters).
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is
as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't (want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.

That's not the way I read it. I read it as he doesn't use the contacts
app, he puts his contacts somewhere else, presumably somewhere which is
not stored or backed up to the cloud.

I'm not commenting on what he says, but on what he does *not* say, but
still *does*, without realizing it.

(Although Google Contacts are
encrypted in the cloud anyway, so it is only on the phone where apps
have permission to read them that it matters).

I think he begs to differ! :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a >> > public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is >> > as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't >> > (want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.

That's not the way I read it. I read it as he doesn't use the contacts
app, he puts his contacts somewhere else, presumably somewhere which is
not stored or backed up to the cloud.

I'm not commenting on what he says, but on what he does *not* say, but still *does*, without realizing it.

OK, what is it he does without realising it, and how did you know about
it if he didn't?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> writes:

Yes, you do store the names and e-mail addresses of your contacts on a >> > public service, you just don't realize it. The public service you use is >> > as liable to leaking contact information as the Google service you don't >> > (want to) use. That's the inconsistency in your argument.

That's not the way I read it. I read it as he doesn't use the contacts
app, he puts his contacts somewhere else, presumably somewhere which is
not stored or backed up to the cloud.

I'm not commenting on what he says, but on what he does *not* say, but still *does*, without realizing it.

OK, what is it he does without realising it, and how did you know about
it if he didn't?

Sorry, but that's for him (and perhaps for you?) to find out. I'm not
going to spoil it.

In case you're not aware of who and what 'Maria' a.k.a. 'Arlen' is, I
can understand that this looks a rather strange way of (not) discussing
things. Be patient.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank Slootweg wrote:

OK, what is it he does without realising it, and how did you know about
it if he didn't?

Sorry, but that's for him (and perhaps for you?) to find out. I'm not
going to spoil it.

Hi Richmond,

Hi Richmond,

What is happening here with Frank is not a technical discussion at all.
It is a rhetorical game. Frank is deliberately withholding his supposed "gotcha" so he can posture as the clever one in the room.

It's Frank's game, but that is not how reasonable people behave when they actually have a technical point they wish to discuss openly & honestly.

Any reasonable participant would ask exactly what you asked:
"OK, what is it he does without realising it,
and how did you know about it if he did not?"

And notice what happened next, he dodged the question again.
Dodging is the tell.

If he had honest motives on a technical argument, he would simply state it. But Frank is inherently a dishonest person to the core as we can see here.

Instead of answering your repeated open and honest questions, Frank repeats
the same vague accusation, refuses to explain it, and hides behind a
childish "I will not spoil it" conspiracy-theme "only I know it" routine.

That is not analysis, it is performance.

This is his signature Usenet move:
a. Imply he knows something secret
b. Refuse to say what it is
c. Hope the audience fills in the blanks
d. Then pop back in later claiming victory because he gets to
define the riddle any way that he feels like it, after the fact

It is a waste of everyone's time.
It's what trolls do.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are openly discussing the actual technical
details honestly. My setup has been explained clearly and repeatedly:

a. The system contacts provider on my phone is empty by design.
b. I use a sandboxed contacts app with its own private database.
c. I do not sync contacts to Google or any cloud service.
d. I invited him, repeatedly, to point out a specific technical
inconsistency, and I expressed an open willingness to discuss it.

I didn't respond to his ever-present incessant personal attacks.

He responded with:
a. No specifics
b. No mechanism
c. No evidence
d. No technical content
e. Just a smug "I know something you do not" posture

That is not a debate. It is just trolling.

And for the record, his veiled hint about "putting email addresses on the cloud" does not even land. I do not use a mail client on my phone at all.
At my age, I simply cannot read email comfortably on a small screen. If I
did, I would use a privacy respecting FOSS client like FairEmail, but that
is irrelevant to this discussion.

The same goes for me making & receiving phone calls using the privacy-aware contacts app through my federally & state-regulated carrier over the air.

The bottom line is simple, he cannot point to any inconsistency because
there is not one. So instead he is playing riddles to inflate his ego.
--
People who have no value love to play silly riddle games with others
because they're desperate to artificially inflate their own value.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]

And for the record, his veiled hint about "putting email addresses on the cloud" does not even land. I do not use a mail client on my phone at all.

And for the record, I did not say or imply that you did use a mail
client on your phone.

Your assumption that my comment was directly related to your use of
phone numbers on your phone, only reconfirms my point that you're so
caught up in *your* side of the matter, that you can not see beyond it.

[...]

The bottom line is simple, he cannot point to any inconsistency because
there is not one.

The inconsistency is there, but not where you (apparently) think it
is. Try to open up your mind and use that "high intelligence" of yours.

To Richmond: Sorry you got caught in the middle.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2