Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)

[Arlen G. Holder]

Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
Internet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

What type of person stores private data on the cloud?
o Technically astute people?
o Technically non-astute people?

For what gain?

In a recent conversation on the net, some people were arguing both ways
about storing data on "the cloud", where I noticed what appears to be a
trend - but which may or may not actually hold water under public
inspection...
o The less technically astute a person, the more they store on the cloud
o The more technically astute, the more they shun cloud storage (IMHO)

Given this is an apropos question for all common consumer operating
systems, a reasonable adult question is whether STORING data on the cloud
has pros and cons for technically astute people.

Clearly technically non-astute people gain CONVENIENCE by storing their
private data on the cloud - of that concept there is no doubt.

But do technically astute people ALSO store private data on the cloud?

Please note I'm not speaking about SHARING that data (although, I am
speaking about accidentally sharing that data with the bad guys by storing
it on the net in the first place).

Sharing data via the Internet is something that even technically astute
people do all the time, such as sharing email and social media and pictures
and documents and maybe even sharing a public calendar which you _intend_
to share - where "sharing" is not the same as "storing" for the purpose of
this question.

This question is only about STORING data on the Internet, such as
o Your media
o Your documents
o Your passwords, private calendar, app backups, etc.

Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
Internet (if so, for what gain over other less-public methods)?

[Libor Striz]

"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on theInternet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

Do people of reasonable technical ability

use any kind of internet communication ?

Most people store there implicitly their social network history.

Most people store there at least their emails, especially if they access them from multiple devices via IMAP4 protocol.

Also, there is a reason to have an extra copy of long term storage data with sentimental or other historical value.

Local storage has its cons about HW portability and questionable long term reliability.

Privacy concerns can be addressed by local encryption.

--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Carlos E.R.]

On 05/06/2019 18.19, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
> Internet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

Why would I answer? If you don't like my answer you will say I'm a
retard or something disgusting.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[The Real Bev]

On 06/05/2019 10:01 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> "Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
>> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on theInternet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

I only upload stuff I might want to share, mainly photos. I delete all
my email from the gmail site periodically, but I have no confidence that
it's actually gone. HD space is cheap.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Is there any way I can help without actually getting involved?"
-- Jennifer, WKRP

[badgolferman]

I use LastPass. It stores my encrypted passwords on the internet. I do this
because it allows me to use my passwords over many different devices and
environments.

My iPhone is backed up to the iCloud. This is not merely for convenience,
but also because I don’t completely trust iTunes reliability since I’ve had
a few instances when the cloned backup or the phone port were defective.

My company is encouraging the use of Sharepoint and OneDrive for document
storage in addition to the forced daily backups done by the local data
center. All of that is placing sensitive data on the “internet”.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:01:13 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> Do people of reasonable technical ability
> use any kind of internet communication ?

Hi Poutnik,

Thank you for that helpful advice and information, and for your ideas.

In the OP, we mentioned that "communication" is different than "storage".
o In fact, even the US government treats them differently, legally.

That is, as far as I'm aware...
o 30 days or less - it's more protected (as it's "communication")
o 30 days or more - it's less protected (as it's "storage")

In your country, things are likely different.

> Most people store there implicitly their social network history.

In the OP, we mentioned that "social networking" is different.
o Networking, by nature, is a public communication mechanism.

> Most people store there at least their emails, especially if they access them from multiple devices via IMAP4 protocol.

In the OP, we mentioned that "email communication" is different.
o Interesting, AFAIK, the US government treats them in this manner...
1. If it's less than 30 days - it's protected by "communication" laws
2. If it's more than 30 days - it's no longer communication; it's storage.

The US Government, as far as I know, treats email data differently
o 30 days or less - it's more protected (as it's "communication")
o 30 days or more - it's less protected (as it's "storage")

I'm not at all sure how your country treats this, but, as we said in the
OP, email is, by nature, something that is used for "communication", and
not necessarily for long-term "storage" (by technically astute people).

> Also, there is a reason to have an extra copy of long term storage data with sentimental or other historical value.

You bring up a good point that having MULTIPLE copies is useful for
important data, where I posit that multiple drives can hold that data,
where you can put a flash stick with encrypted data containers from all
your devices, in a safe deposit box if it's that critical the data.

> Local storage has its cons about HW portability and questionable long term reliability.

You bring up a good point Poutnik, that local storage can get lost, while
cloud storage is always there.

>
> Privacy concerns can be addressed by local encryption.

You bring up a good point that local encryption is so readily available to
consumers that it's not an issue - where - for example - any platform can
encrypt and decrypt local container files of almost any size nowadays, for
free - so it's a general purpose solution available to all users on the
common consumer platforms.

Thank you for that helpful advice and information, and for your ideas.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:17:00 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> HD space is cheap.

Hi The Real Bev,

Thanks for hazarind a response, which, I agree, is an 'opinion' by all of
us, based on our needs and our assessment of our technical skills.

I agree with your point that the fact that local storage is so easily
attained ... is the key point I guess ... which negates any _need_ for the
cloud, for permanent storage ... I would think.

Given storage is cheap, WHY would anyone put permanent storage in the net?
(I can see why "communications" would be on the cloud; but storage?)

If you store locally on removable drives using encryption, if you really
want to, you can lock the storage devices up in a safe deposit box (if
you're that worried about a fire or other catastrophe).

IMHO, statistically speaking, a fire or catastrophe just isn't gonna
happen, statistically speaking, which has to be in the low tenths or maybe
hundredths or even thousandths of a single percentage point, compared to
the presumed statistical chance, IMHO, of your online data being hacked,
for example - which is perhaps far too close to 100% IMHO, over time.

With storage so easy, and encrypted file containers being portable across
the platforms, why would anyone put their permanent storage on the net?

[The Real Bev]

On 06/05/2019 12:26 PM, Meanie wrote:
> My Gmail and home Provider email are set up to be removed from servers
> when I read them on my email program which is the great broken Thunderbird.
>
> I share nothing online except photos in Flicker for items I am selling
> or had to display when I sought assistance. When I must send sensitive
> files, I use Dropbox then delete after the recipient has downloaded. I
> do not and will not use cloud services regardless how many people back
> them or how secure they appear.
>
> I don't use any social media sites as I believe they are for the
> attention starved users.

I've made my facebook account as much like usenet as possible. I see
only stuff posted by friends (old usenet pals, mostly) and friends of
friends. I block ALL ads using either adblockplus or a hosts file. I
still read all usenet groups I've read for 20 years, but they're pretty
empty now. A sad thing.

> One exception would be using it for business,
> otherwise, to display ones life online, IMO, is asinine. Though, it's
> hard to argue with all those great reliable friends people gather over time
>
> No personal file/folders are saved on my PC. I use two external HDs for
> all my data, then I back up once a month to another external HD.

I've got 10 partitions on my computer (1 main, 4 rolling backups and the
rest stuff that I've forgotten about but don't want to throw away --
like those mysterious well-worn keys on the keyring) and a number of USB
drives to back up my main partition. If the house burns down I'm
screwed, but anything less than that and I'm pretty much OK.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The primary purpose of any government entity
is to employ the unemployable."

[Lloyd Parsons]

Unlike many here I use the cloud for almost all things. With Apple the
security is more than good enough even if no perfect. But then I don’t do
much of anything that is of a nature that someone seeing it would matter.
I use LastPass for password management also. With all my Apple stuff it
just makes sense to use iCloud so all my devices have access to all my
data.

In days gone by, when I was doing different things with my tech gear, it
was mostly all with local storage of one sort or another, some usenet,
email and web. But these days it is various social things, photos/videos
and web browsing. About the only thing I do otherwise is my checkbook
program but it doesn’t have sensitive info in it like account numbers and a
spreadsheet or two. All saved in the cloud, all encrypted. You could get
it, but you couldn’t do anything with it.

--
Lloyd

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:01:47 +0200, Michael Logies wrote:

>>Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
>>Internet (if so, for what gain over other less-public methods)?
>

> Of course, but only after local encryption:
> https://www.duplicati.com

Hi Michael Logies,

Thank you very much for bringing value to the Usenet poluck
to share with everyone!
o Duplicati <https://www.duplicati.com/articles/FactSheet/>
"Free backup software to store encrypted backups online
for Windows, macOS and Linux"
<https://updates.duplicati.com/beta/duplicati-2.0.4.5_beta_2018-11-28-x64.msi>

Given both iOS & Android easily "mount" to the desktop as removable drives,
we can also back up our mobile devices, apparently, using this method
(which may be useful given that iTunes is apparently being deprecated by
Apple in the coming days according to rumors prevalent recently).

I did not know about this "duplicati" encrypted backup product, where I
would have used, oh, offhand, probably Veracrypt Truecrypt containers
<https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Downloads.html>
(which can be encrypted & decrypted on all five of the common consumer
platforms) if I was forced to put my private data on the Internet in a
cloud storage sack.

Luckily, this duplicati engine can handle those truecrypt containers:
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/Way-To-Make-A-Backup/>

I think this "duplicati" stuff, on first inspection anyway, looks neat,
where it's something that apparently runs on the local Windows, Linux, or
MacOS desktop which automatically encrypts and uploads your backups to the
cloud provider of choice.
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/Getting-Started/>

I noticed that it can back up to the local network so it's something that
works even outside the cloud, which is useful for many of us, where it
seems to handle the fact that Windows rotates removable drive letters:
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/Windows-Drive-Letters/>

It can filter the types of files that it backs up:
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/Filters/>

And they even have a tutorial for the restoration process:
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/Restore-Process/>

They even have a nice white-paper section of tutorials
<https://www.duplicati.com/articles/>

In summary, thank you for suggesting this Duplicati backup engine, which
can apparently automate the process of both encrypting and backing up data
from your desktop or mobile devices, either to local storage, or to the
cloud provider of choice.

The results are, based on a quick skim of the product just now:
a. Backup automation
b. Encryption at all times
c. Local or cloud storage

Thank you for bringing ideas of value to the Usenet public potluck!
o I will _test_ out this solution for Window, Linux, iOS, & Android.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-06-05 3:55 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 21:01:47 +0200, Michael Logies wrote:
>
>>> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
>>> Internet (if so, for what gain over other less-public methods)?
>>
>> Of course, but only after local encryption:
>> https://www.duplicati.com
>
> Hi Michael Logies,
>
> Thank you very much for bringing value to the Usenet poluck
> to share with everyone!
> o Duplicati <https://www.duplicati.com/articles/FactSheet/>
> "Free backup software to store encrypted backups online
> for Windows, macOS and Linux"
> <https://updates.duplicati.com/beta/duplicati-2.0.4.5_beta_2018-11-28-x64.msi>
>
> Given both iOS & Android easily "mount" to the desktop as removable drives,
> we can also back up our mobile devices, apparently, using this method
> (which may be useful given that iTunes is apparently being deprecated by
> Apple in the coming days according to rumors prevalent recently).

iTunes is going away.

The ability to backup one's portable devices which is currently found in
iTunes is not.

[Ken Springer]

On 6/5/19 1:26 PM, Meanie wrote:
> My Gmail and home Provider email are set up to be removed from servers
> when I read them on my email program which is the great broken Thunderbird.
>
> I share nothing online except photos in Flicker for items I am selling
> or had to display when I sought assistance. When I must send sensitive
> files, I use Dropbox then delete after the recipient has downloaded. I
> do not and will not use cloud services regardless how many people back
> them or how secure they appear.
>
> I don't use any social media sites as I believe they are for the

> attention starved users. One exception would be using it for business,

> otherwise, to display ones life online, IMO, is asinine. Though, it's
> hard to argue with all those great reliable friends people gather over time
>
> No personal file/folders are saved on my PC. I use two external HDs for
> all my data, then I back up once a month to another external HD.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Only one person is responsible for there personal private and sensitive
data, and that is the user/owner of the data. If you place it on the
web, I don't care whose hands it's in, if it gets hacked and/or stolen,
you have only yourself to blame.

I will stipulate, those, that for business purposes you may want to have
some info on the cloud, but you don't need your whole life there.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

[pjp]

In article <qd8q1v$r9h$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arling...@nospam.net
says...

I keep copies of basically everything locally. I do not trust someon
else to properly handle my data, just look at all the various problems
companies have with their cloud infrastructure. I also do not like that
they can or even must (if legally asked) examine my info. I also don't
like thet can retain a copy for as long as they like. Burned DVD's and
external hard disks you keep yourself seems much more solely under my
control.

And this from someone does no social interaction on the net at all, e.g.
no Facebook, Twitter or the like. As an example, I deleted my Facebook
account about 4 years ago now. Anyone want to bet if I go to their site
and try to use old credentials it'll "Welcome Me Back"? When I delete
mail in Hotmail any bet it's still on some backup they keep?

[Libor Striz]

"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:01:13 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:>

> In the OP, we mentioned that "communication" is different than "storage".....
> ....that "social networking" is different. Networking, by nature, is a public communication mechanism.
> ... we mentioned that "email communication" is different.

Technically, stored communication = storage.
Once there, it does not matter much if still there.

If photos or documents are in mailbox or in dedicated cloud storage does matter much, it is just technology difference.

If content is abused, it does not matter much how it was protected by law.


> You bring up a good point that having MULTIPLE copies is useful forimportant data, where I posit that multiple drives can hold that data,where you can put a flash stick with encrypted data containers from allyour devices, in a safe deposit box if it's that critical the data.

Flash sticks are typical example of problematic long term storage due time deterioration of NAND flash memory cells. Plus there must be evaluated combination of technology lifetime and technology availability.

>> Local storage has its cons about HW portability and questionable long term reliability.

> You bring up a good point Poutnik, that local storage can get lost, whilecloud storage is always there.

It is funny as neither of the points I have mentioned is about the storage getting lost. It is the 3rd point I did not mention.

>> Privacy concerns can be addressed by local encryption.

> You bring up a good point that local encryption is so readily available toconsumers that it's not an issue.

... therefore internet storage is not an issue, if the data holder considers it as a good choice. :-)

[Libor Striz]

pjp <pjpoirier_...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Burned DVD's and external hard disks you keep yourself seems much more solely under my control.

How often do you reburn your DVDs ?

[123456789]

pjp wrote:

> I do not trust someone else to properly handle my data, just look at

> all the various problems companies have with their cloud
> infrastructure.

Do you have a credit card? Do you go to the doctor? Do you pay taxes?
Does your car have license plates? On and on and on. Unless you live in
a cave your life is already in the cloud.

> I also do not like that they can or even must (if legally asked)
> examine my info.

True for all of the above.

> I also don't like that they can retain a copy for as long as they
> like.

True for all of the above.

> I deleted my Facebook account about 4 years ago

Bet it's still there.

> When I delete mail in Hotmail any bet it's still on some backup they
> keep?

Yup.

So since you're already hanging out in the cloud (big time) why is so
terrible to also keep your backups there?

[The Real Bev]

No choice about the above, but I damn well won't give the bastards
anything I don't have to.

--
Cheers, Bev
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[123456789]

The Real Bev wrote:

> On 123456789 wrote:

>> Do you have a credit card? Do you go to the doctor? Do you pay
>> taxes? Does your car have license plates? On and on and on. Unless
>> you live in a cave your life is already in the cloud.

>> So since you're already hanging out in the cloud (big time) why is
>> so terrible to also keep your backups there?

> No choice about the above,

Sure you have a choice. You don't have to have a credit card. But life
is so much more convenient using one.

> but I damn well won't give the bastards anything I don't have to.

You don't have to have a phone but you give your phone company your
personal information because having a phone is so convenient.

I don't have to have online storage but I like having access to my
information on most any device at virtually any location because it's so
convenient. And from what I see in the 'latest company to get hacked' TV
news every night it's probably much safer...

[Libor Striz]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> No choice about the above, but I damn well won't give the bastards anything I don't have to.

In real life, it is trade off between data privacy and practical functionality.

The similar is true for trade off between functionality and enterprise IT security policy.

In both scenarios, one cannot have full amount of one side with acceptable amount of the other side.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:03:30 -0000 (UTC), Joe Beanfish wrote:

>> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on
>> the Internet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)
>>
>

> Yes, with private data encrypted. I got tired of not being able to
> access things I needed when out and about and my home internet or
> server was down. Sometimes the "cloud" is a server I control, other
> times it's a service such as dropbox.

Hi Joe Beanfish,

Thank you for that suggestion that the cloud is certainly accessible
wherever you are (as long as you have Internet access), which is clearly a
big bonus to storing data on the cloud.

Somehow, the technically astute of us have to _protect_ that cloud storage,
whether from prying eyes such as we've seen happen at Google, or from
hackers, as we've seen occur at Apple.

The tradeoff we need to technically solve is that between
o Access anytime anywhere, versus
o Protection from hackers.

The technical question to solve is _that_ question, I believe.

I suspect the simplest _potential_ solution, is to back up to the cloud
_only_ that which is doubly encrypted, such as with platform compatible
Truecrypt containers (which all five common consumer operating systems can
read and write).

Having said that, I certainly realize that even 'double' encryption can be
broken, although, I suspect, you'd need a determined focused hacker to want
to try if everyone did this (which is where safety in numbers helps).

Besides double encryption, what _else_ would you recommend as a technical
solution?

Another technical solution is to hang your storage off your router, and
access that storage from the Intgernet - where - unfortunately - that takes
a technical ability that I don't profess to have - since security is wholly
up to you in that situation.

Do you think that hanging an encrypted file container on your router _can_
secure enough to 'compete' with the convenience of cloud storage?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:41:35 +0200, Piet wrote:

> And where do you store them? Theft-safe and fireproof?

Hi Piet,

This is a GOOD POINT, where we each bring value to the Usenet potluck with
our divergent ideas...

Given that people repeatedly claim that the cloud storage is safe from
catastrophic home fires, IMHO, this "theft safe & fireproof" concept is one
that is worth looking at from a _statistical_ standpoint, don't you think?
o What's the chance of someone STEALING your data DVDs?
o What's the chance of your house burning down?
versus
o What's the chance of your data being hacked off the cloud?

I suspect that the statistics are HUGELY variant
o Where it could be close to 100% that cloud data will be stolen
o And close to 0% that your DVDs will be stolen by a thief

While _both_ can happen, we have to be realistic in determining your threat
level, don't we?

For example, we can store our DVDs or flash drives in a safe deposit box
rather easily, can't we?

Or, we can bury them in a box under a tree in the back yard, if we're
concerned about instant access, can't we?

We can put them in a fire-resistant safe, if we're really worried.
o But, once we put it on the cloud - we _lose_ all that, don't we?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:59:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> iTunes is going away.
>
> The ability to backup one's portable devices which is currently found in
> iTunes is not.

Hi Alan Baker,

Thanks for that clarification that, while the iTunes abomination is
apparently soon to be deprecated by Apple, (some?,most?,all?) its
functionality will be provided to the hapless customer in some fashion.

Where, as you may be aware, as is very often the case, I was the first to
report this iTunes deprecation news to the iOS newsgroups earlier this
week, where my information was, of necessity, preliminary at that early
reporting time (as was the battery fiasco, which I was also first to
report, as were many other issues - even the iPhone X preliminary data you
countered in the past with later data)...
o Apple Plans End of iTunes
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/IV9KUqo7JXE>

Subsequent to my first reporting of this news, others also reported it:
o iTunes at long last dead ...
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Sjb1gqN-kH4>

o Re: Apple is killing off iTunes, reports say
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/kM_U7C7vdG8>

Since I'm always all about functional solutions, I also opened this thread:
o What functionality does iTunes do for you that you'll need to replicate without iTunes?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/v2jT-sWIKR0>

Since I personally ditched the iTunes abomination years ago, I only skimmed
the results of that pertinent iTunes-replacement functionality thread,
where, my take on that quick look is that it's not yet clear whether
(some?, most?, all?) the functionality of the iTunes abomination will be
replicated for the hapless consumer.

Given that Usenet is a public potluck where we each strive to bring value
to the table, it would be great if you can add your technical value to that
thread, so that the iTunes users have suitable replacements in hand.

Personally, I think that a good backup strategy should exist for all
consumers of all five of the common consumer platforms...
o Linux
o Windows
o Mac
o Android
o iOS
Of which I own four of those five myself and which I strive to treat as
similarly as possible in terms of cross platform functionality.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 05:18:06 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> Technically, stored communication = storage.
> Once there, it does not matter much if still there.

Hi Poutnik,
I'm not sure from your response whether you understood that _legally_, in
the USA, there _is_ a difference between communication & storage.

Whether _you_ feel that this legal distinction has merit is one thing, but
what's important to note for people communicating with USA companies and
storing those communications on USA companies' servers is that the US
government apparently makes a _huge_ distinction.

It wasn't clear, from your response, whether you comprehended _that_
distinction, as it seems to be that you may be arguing that this legal
distinction does not exist - which - if it doesn't exist - then I would
welcome your cites showing that to be the case.

> If photos or documents are in mailbox or in dedicated cloud storage
> does matter much, it is just technology difference.

Poutnik - It doesn't seem that you comprehended yet the _legal_
distinction.

Rather than me explain the legal distinction again, can you simply clarify
whether you _understand_ that there _is_ a legal distinction (AFAIK)?

Thanks.

> If content is abused, it does not matter much how it was protected by law.

Again, nothing you say is of any use if you don't explain whether you
comprehend that there _is_ a legal distinction between email communications
on Google servers and those same email communications left on the Google
servers for more than 30 days.

> Flash sticks are typical example of problematic long term storage
> due time deterioration of NAND flash memory cells. Plus there must
> be evaluated combination of technology lifetime and technology availability.

I'm unaware that the USB sticks would have a short lifetime compared to
other methods of personal local storage.

The whole point of Usenet is to share value, where if you have a cite which
shows that NAND flash memory on USB sticks has a short lifetime, NOW is the
time to provide that scientifically derived data....

Do you have valid test results for how long USB sticks survive in normal
household conditions?

Many of us use these USB sticks - so any information you can share that is
scientifically valid would add value to the conversation.

[Libor Striz]

"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 05:18:06 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:> Technically, stored communication = storage.> Once there, it does not matter much if still there.

> Hi Poutnik,I'm not sure from your response whether you understood that _legally_, inthe USA, there _is_ a difference between communication & storage.

I have said "technically".

I have intentionally avoided the legal aspect, as it does not apply to me.

[123456789]

Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> What's the chance of your data being hacked off the cloud?

Good point. My cloud storage provider has more than one billion active
accounts. What are the chances...

> close to 0% that your DVDs will be stolen by a thief

In the old days people often lost their whole video DVD collections to
home burglaries. It was a big expensive loss then. Now with streaming
available does anyone actually watch DVDs anymore?

Course you meant data DVDs but the same applies. They also can be lost
in fires, hurricanes, and burglaries.

[default]

Dude, what's to stop him from doing so anyway? You might just as well
answer... "sticks and stones"

[pjp]

In article <qdbdpi$5vm$1...@dont-email.me>, 12...@12345.com says...

True but if your house burns down and takes DVD's with them at my age
I'm worrying about house and not old data backups.

That said, I've not had any problems accessing old dvd's or even older
data cd's. Very occassionally a drive my not read a disk but invaraibly
a second drive will and without errors. Mind you I keep dvd's and cd's
in constant temp/humidity cabinet in basement. DO NOT USE RW's for long
term backups, they seem "iffy" at best.

Wish that'd worked for my thousands of much older floppies, some of them
original 5.5" 360Kb's :) Not one of them will even format properly
anymore.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:08:25 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

> They also can be lost
> in fires, hurricanes, and burglaries.

Thanks for confirming that your major reasons for putting your private data
on the cloud completely in someone else's hands is that you're worried that
you, yourself, can't protect that data.

It's becoming very clear that the less technically competent people seem to
be, the _more_ they argue that they inherently natively naturally innately
gravitate to well-marketed cloud-storage solutions provided to them by the
major players in this business (e.g., Apple & Google, among others).

What takes intelligence & effort is not so much that you argue that
innately, your brain gravitates to commercial cloud-storage solutions, but
for you to discuss how to protect your data when you do put all your data
in the hands of someone else.

Just as it took intelligence & effort to come up with a calendar & password
mechanism that didn't involve putting all my data on the cloud, it will
take a lot more than just complaining to solve the technical issues
inherent in protecting your own data without compromising the convenience
that the cloud offers to the less technical astute hoi polloi.

Assume we old'ish technocrats of Usenet are more technically astute than
your average 10 year old kid, I believe _we_ should be able to come up with
a solution that rivals the cloud in convenience, but which doesn't require
us to put our private data completely in the hands of the cloud providers's
marketing gimmicks.

In short, our added value isn't in complaining about the same old things
that everyone who uses the cloud for convenience complains about - but our
added value is in coming up with astutely derived technical solutions.

Like that cross-platform automatic encrypted backup mechanism for one,
which is a veritable jewel of useful technical tools for such things.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:11:51 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> I have intentionally avoided the legal aspect, as it does not apply to me.

Hi Poutnik,

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the legal aspects are immense, in that
they likely apply to _all_ communications stored on Google servers for the
less/more than 30 days, including communications that come from OUTSIDE the
Google servers.

If zero of your communications are stored on servers that the US considers
under their jurisdiction, then, of course, the legal aspect very likely
doesn't apply to you, I agree.

But that would mean that you _never_ communicate with people with Gmail or
Apple email addresses, right?

Do you really _never_ communicate with people who own email addresses of
companies based in the USA?

(Is that even feasible?)

[The Real Bev]

On 06/06/2019 08:05 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:41:35 +0200, Piet wrote:
>
>> And where do you store them? Theft-safe and fireproof?
>
> Hi Piet,
>
> This is a GOOD POINT, where we each bring value to the Usenet potluck with
> our divergent ideas...
>
> Given that people repeatedly claim that the cloud storage is safe from
> catastrophic home fires, IMHO, this "theft safe & fireproof" concept is one

Fireproof. Friends went through one of the big California fires a while
back. Their entire house was flattened except for the perhaps
4-feet-high "fireproof" safe. Made an impressive picture standing there
amidst the ash. The papers inside were ash, the gold jewelry was melted
into the ash and other bits of stuff, and the Rolex was...interesting.
How many hours of fire can your fireproof safe tolerate? That one was
rated for one hour.

> that is worth looking at from a _statistical_ standpoint, don't you think?
> o What's the chance of someone STEALING your data DVDs?
> o What's the chance of your house burning down?
> versus
> o What's the chance of your data being hacked off the cloud?
>
> I suspect that the statistics are HUGELY variant
> o Where it could be close to 100% that cloud data will be stolen
> o And close to 0% that your DVDs will be stolen by a thief
>
> While _both_ can happen, we have to be realistic in determining your threat
> level, don't we?

I try to back up my entire 353GB partition at least once a week to
either another partition on my computer or a USB drive within easy reach
if I have to flee a fire. Someone is home almost all of the time, so
unless a home invader decides to make off with my HEAVY full-tower
computer and a number of USB drives I feel pretty safe.

How long would it take to copy my partition to the cloud at ~6Mbps?
This is a rhetorical question...

> For example, we can store our DVDs or flash drives in a safe deposit box
> rather easily, can't we?
>
> Or, we can bury them in a box under a tree in the back yard, if we're
> concerned about instant access, can't we?
>
> We can put them in a fire-resistant safe, if we're really worried.
> o But, once we put it on the cloud - we _lose_ all that, don't we?

If we both have to leave home for an extended period (maybe once a
decade) we put recent backups in a box and take them to a friend's house.

--
Cheers, Bev
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.

[nospam]

In article <qdbjlg$9rd$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I try to back up my entire 353GB partition at least once a week to
> either another partition on my computer or a USB drive within easy reach
> if I have to flee a fire. Someone is home almost all of the time, so
> unless a home invader decides to make off with my HEAVY full-tower
> computer and a number of USB drives I feel pretty safe.

backing up one partition to another partition on the same drive or even
another drive in the same computer is not a backup.

it's also a manual operation which is often neglected. 'at least once a
week' means you are likely to lose a week's worth of work.

> How long would it take to copy my partition to the cloud at ~6Mbps?
> This is a rhetorical question...

many cloud services accept seed drives.

in the event of disaster, they can also send you a drive with your data
rather than download everything.

[Libor Striz]

"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

> ......But that would mean that you _never_ communicate with people with Gmail orApple email addresses, right?Do you really _never_ communicate with people who own email addresses ofcompanies based in the USA?(Is that even feasible?)

Of course I do.

But it is not much relevant to privacy data safety, by what law it is protected, unless it is a nature law.

Additionally, the *practical* border between "storage" and "communication
is very fuzzy.

[Libor Striz]

"Arlen G. Holder" <arling...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

> And close to 0% that your DVDs will be stolen by a thief

Time is a very good thieve of CD/DVD data.

[123456789]

Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> 123456789 wrote:

>> They [DVDs] also can be lost in fires, hurricanes, and burglaries.

> Thanks for confirming that your major reasons for putting your
> private data on the cloud completely in someone else's hands is that
> you're worried that you, yourself, can't protect that data.

I encrypt the sensitive data before storing it on the cloud.

[123456789]

pjp wrote:
> 12345@12345 says...

>> They [DVDs] can be lost in fires, hurricanes, and burglaries.

> True but if your house burns down and takes DVD's with them at my
> age I'm worrying about house and not old data backups.

My backups include copies of legal papers, licenses, irreplaceable
photos, etc. Two bucks a month is good fire insurance IMO. YMMV.

[Jolly Roger]

123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>
> I encrypt the sensitive data before storing it on the cloud.

That’s the smart way to do it. That way if the cloud is compromised your
data is still safe. The majority of user data stored in iCloud is
end-to-end encrypted with a key only known to the individual user:
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I try to back up my entire 353GB partition at least once a week to
> either another partition on my computer or a USB drive within easy reach
> if I have to flee a fire. Someone is home almost all of the time, so
> unless a home invader decides to make off with my HEAVY full-tower
> computer and a number of USB drives I feel pretty safe.

Add a drive to the picture, and swap it with that one once a week/month,
storing the other drive in your car or somewhere else off site, and fire is
no longer as big of a concern.

> How long would it take to copy my partition to the cloud at ~6Mbps?
> This is a rhetorical question...

Too freaking long to be practical for many of us. Taking a hard drive or
two with you when you leave the house occasionally is much more practical.

> If we both have to leave home for an extended period (maybe once a
> decade) we put recent backups in a box and take them to a friend's house.

Good idea. Be sure to encrypt those drives so the data is safe from prying
eyes.

[The Real Bev]

On 06/06/2019 05:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I try to back up my entire 353GB partition at least once a week to
>> either another partition on my computer or a USB drive within easy reach
>> if I have to flee a fire. Someone is home almost all of the time, so
>> unless a home invader decides to make off with my HEAVY full-tower
>> computer and a number of USB drives I feel pretty safe.
>
> Add a drive to the picture, and swap it with that one once a week/month,
> storing the other drive in your car or somewhere else off site, and fire is
> no longer as big of a concern.
>
>> How long would it take to copy my partition to the cloud at ~6Mbps?
>> This is a rhetorical question...
>
> Too freaking long to be practical for many of us. Taking a hard drive or
> two with you when you leave the house occasionally is much more practical.
>
>> If we both have to leave home for an extended period (maybe once a
>> decade) we put recent backups in a box and take them to a friend's house.
>
> Good idea. Be sure to encrypt those drives so the data is safe from prying
> eyes.

Our friends are free to look at whatever they want, but they don't run
linux.


--
Cheers, Bev
Schrodinger's Cake: You can have it AND eat it.
--Roland Curtis

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:48:32 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 06/06/2019 08:05 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:41:35 +0200, Piet wrote:
>>
>>> And where do you store them? Theft-safe and fireproof?
>>
>> Hi Piet,
>>
>> This is a GOOD POINT, where we each bring value to the Usenet potluck with
>> our divergent ideas...
>>
>> Given that people repeatedly claim that the cloud storage is safe from
>> catastrophic home fires, IMHO, this "theft safe & fireproof" concept is one
>
>Fireproof. Friends went through one of the big California fires a while
>back. Their entire house was flattened except for the perhaps
>4-feet-high "fireproof" safe. Made an impressive picture standing there
>amidst the ash. The papers inside were ash, the gold jewelry was melted
>into the ash and other bits of stuff, and the Rolex was...interesting.
>How many hours of fire can your fireproof safe tolerate? That one was
>rated for one hour.

Which is a reminder that solutions are not absolute.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Paul]

It says right on the tin, how many hours it is rated for.
If your documents are burned, you need a higher rating :-)

The larger the thermal mass, the longer it takes to heat up.

This one is rated 3 hours. It's regular $9200 dollars, and
is now only $5100. So if a thief steals the safe, the safe
is likely worth more than the contents.

https://secure.img1-ag.wfcdn.com/im/89487050/resize-h800-w800%5Ecompr-r85/1784/1784047/3+Hr+Fireproof+Data+Security+Safe+with+Electronic+Lock.jpg

I guess we would rate these "a scam at the best of times".

I wonder how many tons of steel plates you could buy
for $9200 ? Like, build an entire fireproof room. with lots
of air gap to make for a large gradient.

Aerogel makes a great insulator, but it can't take 1500F by itself.
I think it'll handle a natural gas flame OK (which is
relatively cool as flames go). Aerogel is better than R10 per inch,
and quite expensive due to how its made. Sheets can be thinner than
an inch, because it isn't nearly as easy to make as Styrofoam SM.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photo-of-an-aerogel-above-a-blow-torch-Photo-Aerogel-2012_fig1_275209519

There are also those ceramic tiles on the space shuttle. Maybe a steel
box with those as an insulator would work.

Paul

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 16:46:52 -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
wrote:

[snip]

>It says right on the tin, how many hours it is rated for.
>If your documents are burned, you need a higher rating :-)

Read "needed" for "need" <G>.

>The larger the thermal mass, the longer it takes to heat up.
>
>This one is rated 3 hours. It's regular $9200 dollars, and
>is now only $5100. So if a thief steals the safe, the safe
>is likely worth more than the contents.
>
>https://secure.img1-ag.wfcdn.com/im/89487050/resize-h800-w800%5Ecompr-r85/1784/1784047/3+Hr+Fireproof+Data+Security+Safe+with+Electronic+Lock.jpg
>
>I guess we would rate these "a scam at the best of times".

ISTM that the first question should be "How long is a building
fire likely to result in the elevated temperatures that your treasures
need protection from?" and that the first priority would be making
sure that the fireproof safe is rated for at least that long plus a
safety margin.

Or why bother?

What good are those one-hour safes?

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[The Real Bev]

Who in Santa Rosa thought that they'd need even ONE hour?

--
Cheers, Bev
"We thought about one of those discount store caskets, but,
frankly, we were worried about the quality."
-- mortuary commercial

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 23:14:19 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 06/09/2019 06:55 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

[snip]

>> What good are those one-hour safes?
>
>Who in Santa Rosa thought that they'd need even ONE hour?

Housefire?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[nospam]

In article <qdksfs$ic7$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > What good are those one-hour safes?
>
> Who in Santa Rosa thought that they'd need even ONE hour?

those who understand risk.

[The Real Bev]

On 06/10/2019 10:30 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 23:14:19 -0700, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 06/09/2019 06:55 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> What good are those one-hour safes?
>>
>>Who in Santa Rosa thought that they'd need even ONE hour?
>
> Housefire?

Tubbs Fire. A curious thing: Google shows street view after the fire
(2017), but the satellite view is still pre-fire.

--
Cheers, Bev
"What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine."
-- S. Brown

[Zaghadka]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:19:11 -0000 (UTC), in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Arlen
G. Holder wrote:

>This question is only about STORING data on the Internet, such as
>o Your media
>o Your documents
>o Your passwords, private calendar, app backups, etc.

I'm confused. Do you mean that the data exists only in the cloud? No
local copy? Does any service do that? All of my cloud services will keep
a local copy on the computer.

Assuming you mean store data in the cloud and have it locally synced, I
use both Dropbox and Google Drive.

I keep my passwords in the Dropbox, in a password protected Excel
spreadsheet. This has saved my ass numerous times, as all I need is my
phone to look up my passwords. Or on any other device I'm using at the
time.

When I was in school, I kept all my school work in Dropbox to prevent
accidental deletion and to track revisions. "The computer ate my
homework" is no longer an acceptable excuse with free cloud services
available.

Version history is a *big* feature of both Dropbox and Drive. Did you
screw up that file? Restore a previous version. Even if you f-ed it up a
week ago. If you pay, you can get quite a long period of version backups.

Because of versioning, I keep my financial program data files in Dropbox.
Again, they're password protected.

I keep my contacts book in Dropbox as well. I trust them to not look at
it. It's not really a big deal. They have privacy policies.

I also keep anything that I would want to be accesible from any machine I
use. There isn't much that falls under this category, but all my tabletop
RPG stuff is in Dropbox, so I can bring any device I want to a game
(laptop or phone), and change my characters and have it sync to all my
other devices.

I don't keep my pictures in the cloud. No reason to.

My cloud drive passwords are *extremely* strong. That's all you need to
make it work.

I build my own desktop computers and used to be a IT professional. I
guess that makes me "technically proficient."

The main benefits are cross-platform data sync and version history. The
cost is you have to trust people not to mine your personal data.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:42:19 -0500, Zaghadka wrote:

> I'm confused. Do you mean that the data exists only in the cloud? No
> local copy? Does any service do that? All of my cloud services will keep
> a local copy on the computer.

Hi Zag,
I generally consider you to be reasonably competent, so I will read below
with interest how you approach the stated problem set.

To answer your question, I "assume" the cloud storage is a "copy" of the
local storage, in all cases.

Since I don't store anything I don't have to on the cloud, I don't know if
anyone stores the ORIGINAL data alone (not a copy) on the cloud, where if
they do not keep a copy on the local device or in external storage, then I
would wonder why they trust the cloud so much. :)

> Assuming you mean store data in the cloud and have it locally synced, I
> use both Dropbox and Google Drive.

It will be interesting to see why you do that, and for what gain.

> I keep my passwords in the Dropbox, in a password protected Excel
> spreadsheet. This has saved my ass numerous times, as all I need is my
> phone to look up my passwords. Or on any other device I'm using at the
> time.

Passwords on the cloud make sense, where I'm not so sure an Excel
encryption is secure (I used to break them years ago, for example, along
with PDF passwords, but I haven't tried in a long time).

We never know if ANY encryption is secure because the bad guys aren't going
to tell us (and they break the hardest encryptions all the time, so, if
they 'wanted' ours, I'm sure they already have it).

Having said that we'll never know if any encryption is safe, most of us
seem to use keeppass-like dedicated password storage or LastPass for the
really lazy people.

I wonder what gain Excel has over keepass?

I can't think of any gain, particularly since Keepass is freeware available
on all five common consumer platforms, so you can easily store your
passwords on all your devices without ever having to put them on the cloud.

Passwords don't change as frequently as does, say, a calendar, which means
there's almost zero reason, I would think, to put passwords on the cloud
unless you need a password when you don't have your device with you.

Even in that case, you can put a password database on your flash stick
mounted to a recent router (SMB 2 or above) where you can access your
encrypted database from anywhere in the world.

In short, I UNDERSTAND your Excel method, but I worry about two things:
1. Excel encryption versus keepass-like encryption, and,
2. Why do you need the password database to be on the cloud

NOTE: You explained why you need it on the cloud - but I simply state that
passwords don't change that often, IMHO, where you can easily avoid putting
passwords on the cloud.

> When I was in school, I kept all my school work in Dropbox to prevent
> accidental deletion and to track revisions. "The computer ate my
> homework" is no longer an acceptable excuse with free cloud services
> available.

Good point. There is merit, particularly for school stuff which isn't all
that private in the first place, to be online and readily accessible from
the library or from the dorm room or from home or while on the road.

I don't consider school stuff all that private, as compared to, oh, say,
medical records or passwords would be so you make a good point that these
kind of less private things readily go on the cloud.

Even if the cloud is hacked (and it WILL be hacked), you don't lose
anything but a school paper on why women's studies is needed but not men's
studies. :)

> Version history is a *big* feature of both Dropbox and Drive. Did you
> screw up that file? Restore a previous version. Even if you f-ed it up a
> week ago. If you pay, you can get quite a long period of version backups.

Ouch. I've spent decades in the Silicon Valley on "version history". Don't
even get me started. They all suck in very different ways. But they're all
needed, in just as many different ways.

Good luck to you on version history stuff for binary files.

Me?
I just rename the binary files (filename_date_a, filename_date_b, etc.).

I gave up on version control long ago, due to the limitations, particularly
for BINARY files (where incremental updates aren't easily done and where
MANY MANY MANY updates are constantly done).

Text files are easy. Binary files that change a lot are sheer hell, IMHO.

> Because of versioning, I keep my financial program data files in Dropbox.
> Again, they're password protected.

It's good you double encrypt in that I wouldn't put anything on the cloud
that I didn't have encrypted first on my own, perhaps using Veracrypt style
containers (which work on all five common consumer platforms, although
they're not free on iOS).

With Veracrypt style containers, you can easily manage the file on all five
common consumer platforms, and then upload the encrypted container (perhaps
containing a hidden container inside the container, much like those Russian
dolls), onto your cloud storage.

Again, nobody knows how good the encryption really is - but for the
layperson, it's likely "good enough for now", I suspect.

Certainly it's better than no encryption at all other than what DropBox
provides, where I can't imagine anyone storing anything private on the
cloud that isn't doubly encrypted (or triply encrypted in the case of the
hidden containers).

> I keep my contacts book in Dropbox as well. I trust them to not look at
> it. It's not really a big deal. They have privacy policies.

I wouldn't rely so much on "privacy policies" since I'm not a lawyer, and
they have loopholes, but even more so, since the hackers who will get your
data don't abide by those privacy policies anyway.

Just as I noted that passwords don't change all that much, contacts change
only slightly faster for most people, so I feel that there's absolutely no
need to put contacts on the cloud when all five common consumer platforms
handle VCARD files which can be stored inside of encrypted file containers
for free on all common consumer platforms other than on iOS.

I get that contacts need to be accessible, but my assumption is that they
don't change faster than each day, where each day you can synchronize all
your files to every device that is connected to your home LAN using the
solution Michael Logies had suggested, which is a GREAT SOLUTION overall!

o Duplicati <https://www.duplicati.com/articles/FactSheet/>
"Free backup software to store encrypted backups online for Windows, macOS and Linux"
<https://updates.duplicati.com/beta/duplicati-2.0.4.5_beta_2018-11-28-x64.msi>

Seems to me, the solution that is best for both privacy and accessibility
is to synchronize the VCARD file (or the encrypted db file) whenever the
devices are on the home LAN which should happen, in most cases, faster than
the contacts would change.

> I also keep anything that I would want to be accesible from any machine I
> use. There isn't much that falls under this category, but all my tabletop
> RPG stuff is in Dropbox, so I can bring any device I want to a game
> (laptop or phone), and change my characters and have it sync to all my
> other devices.

Yes. I agree. The whole point is to synchronize all your files, locally,
onto all your devices, where the only files that NEED to be on the cloud
are those that change constantly, every minute or so, which, in effect,
isn't much.

Your email does that.
Your stock portfolio does that.

But what else changes by the minute?

> I don't keep my pictures in the cloud. No reason to.

Good! Pictures are a privacy hole if there ever was one.

> My cloud drive passwords are *extremely* strong. That's all you need to
> make it work.

Maybe. But there are other ways to get to data other than brute force
attacks. Every MARKETING org that sells a cloud solution or an encryption
solution tries to make you think the ONLY way anyone will attack is by
frontal brute force.

In reality, very few attacks are frontal brute force in real life.

> I build my own desktop computers and used to be a IT professional. I
> guess that makes me "technically proficient."

I consider you technically proficient, as I consider myself to be
reasonably proficient in privacy online - but there's ALWAYS more to learn.

Those on the left side of the DK scale think they know it all already,
where you and I still have lots to learn and that's a good thing.

> The main benefits are cross-platform data sync and version history. The
> cost is you have to trust people not to mine your personal data.

I like your summary, where I think the MAIN reason for cloud storage is
sheer mindless convenience. Turn our minds off and we can still access all
our data if we put it on the cloud.

I contrast that mindless convenience with a purposeful strategy to only put
on the cloud data which changes by the minute, where the rest of the data
which only changes about daily or less, doesn't need to be on the cloud,
IMHO.

Thanks for your ideas, where I welcome the opportunity to see how other
people think, where your arguments were all reasonable, even as I contrast
them with mine - since logic depends on how much weight we put on each
condition.

Thanks for bringing technical value to the Usenet potluck to share with
all.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
> Internet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

Yes. Don't forget that your PC at home is technically "on the Internet",
and it's usually pretty easy to make accessible.

>
> What type of person stores private data on the cloud?
> o Technically astute people?
> o Technically non-astute people?

"The cloud(tm)" is just marketing BS for "on a server somewhere on the
internet" -- generally with the caveat of "owned by someone else".

>
> For what gain?

I can look something up if I need to.

> [...]

> This question is only about STORING data on the Internet, such as
> o Your media

Nah, too bandwidth intensive. I mean I _CAN_ get at it, but it involves
a ssh jumphost or a VPN connection, plus however long it takes to
transfer across the internet on whatever slow-as-anything internet
connection I have at $remote_location

> o Your documents

They're more generally accessible, but still need a (key auth) sftp
transfer. Though there are things that we do share for extremely
time-limited (1 week or less) periods, as emailing 50MB+ of pics from
Christmas or something to out-of-state family doesn't always work.

> o Your passwords, private calendar, app backups, etc.

Passwords - NO.
Calendar - Yeah; but it's more the "need to share this with people
outside the domicile". The truely "private" things are still on paper
in the kitchen.
Programs - absolutely; but I suppose you probably don't count the Debian
repos.

>
> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the

> Internet (if so, for what gain over other less-public methods)?

"On the Internet", sure -- with the caveat that it's likely their own
machine running one or more servies, such as sftp / {own,next}cloud /
email / etc. moreso than gdrive or dropbox.

That is not to say those "commercial" services aren't used, but that
they're for different purposes (e.g. I love the "send to dropbox"
features some sites use for digital goods).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl0AM+cACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEOpwgAp8KiC/bMJ2M9iL2/9H+izyEMFdO4vu3BLeaBKH5xbLDUWU/pdvbTt88l
MT03pz5QdRFp/yfBr/el9/PqsBCN4Gi7Y661kO6/QWuAUGm4YZgL31oUCuOANuVQ
E2jwi7dIRuDam0HtmBikq4wgfzd/VO0ez/LFm+ifvWtxUvDLUpm/eEh1QQ8ahk0p
1zrhDFqSK6DteQabTfv2DR8hUfNRse2T5M3VGcc35AvHQP7kK/6a5lHW1OvSvpXC
hQpGkSaFclOs3r2n8vMppkY4soxnsMP0aYhdZnBDPi5a6kkm8e1jhHY9wny5sVNM
EORHAviLOQc+GXvvaEJ5Tudc04zgNg==
=jab0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[Arlen G. Holder]

In response to:
o Why do the big marketing organizations offer free cloud storage anyway?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/pcJlecNK-LQ>



On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 09:13:51 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

> Off site data protection is just good sense. No marketing
> necessary.

Hi 123456789,

Be advised - I'm going to be blunt with you below
o *Since the point is that there's NO ADVANTAGE to your solution.*

What amazes me is how you people seem to turn your brains completely off
o Which is why you and people like you love to use the cloud (I posit).

See this thread, which posits that the dumber someone appears to be,
the more they tend to love to store their private data on the cloud:
o Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the
Internet (if so, for what gain?)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/mBIZ-8jGdmk/aLDJkSJQAAAJ>

What amazes me is the utter lack of sensible logic in what you suggest.
o Does it NOT occur to you that the cloud storage WILL be hacked?

How can you people who turn your brains off in order to use the cloud
ALWAYS fail to realize that storing an encrypted drive in a safe deposit
box (or any other safe location) is utterly trivial?

(IMHO) There are ZERO advantages to storing your personal data on the
cloud, that any intelligent adult can't figure out simply by storing their
personal data intelligently, OFF the cloud.

If _you_ can figure out an advantage - then let me know
o As nothing you suggest is any better than what I already wrote

And, in fact, everything you propose is far worse.

> Even if your in-house data survives the fire you may lose
> physical access to it for a time (perhaps months?). My cloud
> data is accessible (almost) anyplace, anytime, and on any
> device.

See above.

Name _any_ advantage the cloud has over the suggested offline solution.
o Name just one.

> Since you have no link I will ASSume that % is a your GUESS.

Yup.
o Chance of your storage being hacked is just about 100% (IMHO).
o Chance of your safe deposit box being hacked is far lower (IMHO).
o Chance of your copy at home being hacked is even lower still (IMHO).

If you need "instant access" to your data when there ISN'T a fire or
earthquake, the logic is so simple that even you can figure it out, which
is to maintain an offline encrypted copy at home - and - then - at your
convenience, drop off an encrypted copy at the local bank for safekeeping.

This is where encrypted file containers excel, by the way:
o Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/cas1QJ_j2uI/4Uut0HGrBgAJ>

> My GUESS is that my cloud account being only one out of the
> hundreds of millions of accounts that my provider
> services my chances of (un-targeted) hacking is more near to
> zero.

Do you claim that ANY of the main half dozen personal cloud storage
companies have NOT been hit by hackers (today & forever in the future)?

And what is your claim for those same sites, for zero-day vulnerabilities
that you're completely unaware of today, and forever in the future?


>> What's the chance your house will burn down? Nearly 0%
>
> Agreed. But I still carry homeowners insurance...

I don't.
o I don't have earthquake insurance (too expensive)
o I only have fire insurance (not anything else whatsoever).

Same with my cars:
o I don't insure the car for damage
o I only insure for liability

You insure only that which you can't afford to replace.

You're using the "cloud storage" for "insurance".
o I get that.

My argument is that you're using faulty logic.
o All I ask of anyone - are facts - and then sentient logic.

*ADVANTAGES of PERSONAL CLOUD STORAGE*
o Convenient (you can turn your brain off completely in fact)
o Fast (it's always there - for you - and for the hackers)
o Available (it's available when you're on the road).
o Insurance (it's still there even after your house burns down).

*DISADVANTAGES of PERSONAL CLOUD STORAGE*
o It will be hacked - (my assessment & that of others)

*ADVANTAGE of LOCAL ENCRYPTED PERSONAL CONTAINER STORAGE*
o Convenient (but you need to be intelligent about it)
o Fast (it's always there - at home - and on your mobile device)
o Available (it's available on your mobile when you're on the road).
o Insurance (it's still there even after your house burns down).

*DISADVANTAGES of LOCAL ENCRYPTED PERSONAL CONTAINER STORAGE*
o You have to put your brain in gear to come up with a plan

>> MARKETING plays to your fear; not to your logic.
>
> I think logic is more my reason for my cloud data backup and
> marketing just happens to agree with me in this case... ;)

Let's talk logic since logic and facts are what I'm about.

Advantage of cloud storage _must_ be huge to the big six, right?
o What is that advantage?

As far as anyone can tell, what has been _proposed_ is:
a. They mine your data (which is a bad thing for you)
b. They want to rent you back your data (which is a bad thing for you)

Hmmmm... what ELSE is the reason _they_ give you personal storage?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:14:58 -0400, nospam wrote:

>>> What's the method of putting the Windows _computer_ on the Internet
>>> safely?
>>
>> Plug it into your router, add port forwards to whatever programs are
>> hosting the service(s) you want to provide. Of course, this does assume
>> that your ISP provides you with a public IP address at your router (I
>> guess they do, given your USB Key comment).
>
> that is not a safe way to do it. in fact, it's very unsafe.

The fact is that it takes reasonable technical ability to safely store
private data _off_ the Internet.
o It takes no brains whatsoever to fall for the cloud-marketing gimmicks

REFERENCES:
(Showing it takes intelligence & effort to keep private data off the cloud.)
o Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/mBIZ-8jGdmk/aLDJkSJQAAAJ>

o Why do the big marketing organizations offer free cloud storage anyway?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/T8jyHNmCHoo/_QgyHUn_AwAJ>
o What are some key common databases you often SHARE between your desktop & mobile devices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/fbtSgT0AiP0/Bwb_tsmeBwAJ>
o Do you have a working freeware automatic sync between Android & Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/7aOWwoEwsZ0/3f5qTpwBAgAJ>
o Is there any free FUNCTIONALITY that you need to do on Android, that you can't do WITHOUT a Google Account?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/xzaii4eUY_E/WeY-r7_OAAAJ>
o What do Android experts use for their single cross-platform encrypted password database synced on the LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/YChNXksRNHw/tp74v9LJAwAJ>
o How do you successfully import & merge & overwrite multiple keepass.kdbx files between Windows & Android?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/y7CWoAunIOY/8eBx3mXSBAAJ>
o Do you have a working cross-platform PASSWD database for Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, & Android on your home LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/iIjcGCYnm-E/HV1B82nlBwAJ>
o Has anyone here ever set up a CalDAV server on Windows for use with Android CalDAV clients?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/52iSsFUQinE/AflgVrHVEAAJ>
o What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/3QQ8bAZeXNI/p7yqvwHrBQAJ>
o From Windows, how can we open a command line on the Android filesystem?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/vmWWLzPHKt0/bG6EHd8GBQAJ>
etc.
HINT: It takes intelligence & effort to keep private data OFF the cloud!

[Arlen Holder]

UPDATE:

Apple users _still_ are primitive in what they suggest to users.
o File sharing with iTunes
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WfiLBzYbnDY>

Shockingly, these supposedly helpful hints were made just today, over here:
o Lewis <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WfiLBzYbnDY/tnd5LMnMBAAJ>
"There is no iOS setting, and most apps have moved to sharing files via iCloud."

To which, the OP (rightly so) said:
"I don't use iCloud drive."
To which, astoundingly, the Apple Apologists advised:
"Then you're going to be limited in what you can do."

These Apple users literally suggest as an answer to how to copy large
movies from your own desktop to your own mobile device, using Apple's
expensive, slow (& quite limited in size) iCloud instead of a USB cable!
"I don't think Photos is generally the right place for movies,
but you can put them in your iCloud drive and access them"
o Lewis <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WfiLBzYbnDY/tnd5LMnMBAAJ>

"In the "perfect Apple world" are no such things as wired connections.
Either you use Air Drop, your wireless network or the public wireless
(ie mobile) network. This is also the reason why Apple devices have
no LAN interfaces built in for years."
o Jeorg Lorenz <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WfiLBzYbnDY/eD_UWdrSBAAJ>

And yet, anyone intelligent can easily transfer any number of any sized
files to and from their desktops and any portable device that the desktop
can accommodate (usually via USB but any method works) simply by booting to
the OS & connecting a USB cable to the device (Android, iOS, optical,
flash, etc.):
o Only a fool would need to use the cloud to transfer files to/from his own devices.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sgSv_BRzO0A>

--
Amazingly, almost unfathomably, it seems that (admittedly brilliant)
Marketing has trained hordes of unimaginative users to use the expensive &
slow (and insecure) cloud simply to transfer large files & their private
data two feet back & forth from their desktops to their mobile devices.

[The Real Bev]

I put photos that I want to share on google photos, previously the
Picasa website which I liked a lot better. I put files that I want to
share that are too big to go in email on dropbox. Anything else seems
like way too much trouble as well as having the who-do-you-trust? problem.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Johnston [Island] was the home of a U.S. chemical weapons disposal
facility for 10 years before operations ended in November 2000.
The island was turned into a wildlife preserve."
© 2002 The Associated Press

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:18:01 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> I put photos that I want to share on google photos, previously the
> Picasa website which I liked a lot better. I put files that I want to
> share that are too big to go in email on dropbox. Anything else seems
> like way too much trouble as well as having the who-do-you-trust? problem.

Hi The Real Bev,

You and I go way back where I thank you for helping me understand your use
of the cloud that you just posted, which seems reasonable, and which makes
complete sense to use the cloud for things too big for email that you wish
to share with others who are far away.

For example, pointing people to your photos that are too large to email
seems to be a perfect use of the cloud, where the main problem is that you
want to use the "free" cloud as much as possible (knowing you and me), so
it's likely only 'temporary' photos are what you use the cloud for.

What I deplore is that forever renting my own data back from the cloud
providers seems like their marketing plan, which is why I never use more
than the allocated amount (which I think is 15GB for Google & something
like a puny 5GB plus some tricks to get more for free from Apple's iCloud).
o *Why do the big marketing organizations offer free cloud storage anyway?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/T8jyHNmCHoo/_QgyHUn_AwAJ>

The good news, I think, with Google Fi anyway, is Google adds Google One
when you have Google Fi, which I got in order to get $200 off on what
turned out to be a $100 Moto G7. <https://fi.google.com/about/>

By getting Google Fi (on a handful of phones which I gave as stocking
stuffers), I ended up getting 100GB of Google One storage for each Motorola
G7 I gave away as a gift, so now I have _tons_ of unused cloud storage! :)

I'm happy with T-Mobile where, unfortunately, the US Moto G7 only has one
available SIM card slot, so I can only use one cellular service at a time.
[*I wonder if we can cut out that second slot & get two SIMs working?*]
<https://i.postimg.cc/CxjDygsz/motog704.jpg>

BTW, I think it's interesting that nospam always compares the worst phones
by price to performance to his beloved iPhones, where this new $100 Moto G7
(with 64GB of storage and 4GB of RAM for 8 CPU cores) is about the price of
the California sales tax on his comparison phones, which don't even have
the hardware nor anywhere near the modern app functionality of this $100
Moto G7 phablet which replaced my previous $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus that I
bought at Costco on Christmas eve two years ago:
<https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

--
BTW, all my iOS & Android devices are organized just like my Windows 10
desktop is (i.e., by functionality):
<https://i.postimg.cc/MTX4gRKW/motog705.jpg>

[The Real Bev]

On 12/29/2019 12:50 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:18:01 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I put photos that I want to share on google photos, previously the
>> Picasa website which I liked a lot better. I put files that I want to
>> share that are too big to go in email on dropbox. Anything else seems
>> like way too much trouble as well as having the who-do-you-trust? problem.
>
> Hi The Real Bev,
>
> You and I go way back where I thank you for helping me understand your use
> of the cloud that you just posted, which seems reasonable, and which makes
> complete sense to use the cloud for things too big for email that you wish
> to share with others who are far away.
>
> For example, pointing people to your photos that are too large to email
> seems to be a perfect use of the cloud, where the main problem is that you
> want to use the "free" cloud as much as possible (knowing you and me), so
> it's likely only 'temporary' photos are what you use the cloud for.

Actually, no. Google allows unlimited photo storage as long as the
greater dimension of each photo is 1600 pixels, so I edit them to that
size and post them in nice organized albums. Filenames are the
filedates. I keep my originals in one subdirectory and the edited
photos in a different one. I've organized them nicely in albums, so I
can find what I want easier there than on my own machine!

I edit with Picasa, which is also good at finding my photos based on
WORDS -- flowers, snow, people, etc.

> What I deplore is that forever renting my own data back from the cloud
> providers seems like their marketing plan, which is why I never use more
> than the allocated amount (which I think is 15GB for Google & something
> like a puny 5GB plus some tricks to get more for free from Apple's iCloud).
> o *Why do the big marketing organizations offer free cloud storage anyway?*
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/T8jyHNmCHoo/_QgyHUn_AwAJ>

Daughter takes far more pictures than I do, and she stores them on the
iCloud. Sharing with not-iPeople is iffy, unfortunately. I can only
see half of the thousands of pix she took on her month-long driving trip
around the UK :-(

> The good news, I think, with Google Fi anyway, is Google adds Google One
> when you have Google Fi, which I got in order to get $200 off on what
> turned out to be a $100 Moto G7. <https://fi.google.com/about/>
>
> By getting Google Fi (on a handful of phones which I gave as stocking
> stuffers), I ended up getting 100GB of Google One storage for each Motorola
> G7 I gave away as a gift, so now I have _tons_ of unused cloud storage! :)

I have several gmail accounts, so I figure I have pretty much unlimited
free storage.

> I'm happy with T-Mobile where, unfortunately, the US Moto G7 only has one
> available SIM card slot, so I can only use one cellular service at a time.
> [*I wonder if we can cut out that second slot & get two SIMs working?*]
> <https://i.postimg.cc/CxjDygsz/motog704.jpg>

I'd like a $150 64GB phone with two SIMs and a 128GB sdcard. I don't
need 128GB, but what the heck, cards are cheap! Oh yeah, and a good
camera...

> BTW, I think it's interesting that nospam always compares the worst phones
> by price to performance to his beloved iPhones, where this new $100 Moto G7
> (with 64GB of storage and 4GB of RAM for 8 CPU cores) is about the price of
> the California sales tax on his comparison phones, which don't even have
> the hardware nor anywhere near the modern app functionality of this $100
> Moto G7 phablet which replaced my previous $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus that I
> bought at Costco on Christmas eve two years ago:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/136096sR/motog700.jpg>

Still happy with my Moto G5+, which is now 2 years old.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Why does everybody always forget the eigthth dwarf? Just because
poor old Lumpy died of cancer doesn't mean he should be written
out of history." -- RMassey

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:19:25 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Google allows unlimited photo storage as long as the
> greater dimension of each photo is 1600 pixels

Hi The Real Bev,
I was unaware that Google allows unlimited (smallish) photos!
o Thanks for letting me (us) know (info is where Usenet is useful!)

> I edit with Picasa, which is also good at finding my photos based on
> WORDS -- flowers, snow, people, etc.

That's exactly whey I don't put my private data (incl. photos) on the net!

> Daughter takes far more pictures than I do, and she stores them on the
> iCloud. Sharing with not-iPeople is iffy, unfortunately. I can only
> see half of the thousands of pix she took on her month-long driving trip
> around the UK :-(

I have iCloud accounts that you _must_ have with each iOS device (AFAIK);
where, intelligent people will note that only Apple _requires_ an account
for mobile devices.

Android phones do not have that huge privacy flaw of all iOS devices.
o Note: Apple advertises the heck out of what is _imaginary_ privacy!

> I have several gmail accounts, so I figure I have pretty much unlimited
> free storage.

Understood. Gmail doesn't like me so much 'cuz I use random VPN servers
where Gmail hates people who log in one second from Texas, the next minute
from Kansas, and five minutes later from the UK or Germany or whatever.

> I'd like a $150 64GB phone with two SIMs and a 128GB sdcard. I don't
> need 128GB, but what the heck, cards are cheap! Oh yeah, and a good
> camera...

All common consumer devices get better, faster, & cheaper over time:
(except the (admittedly brilliantly) marketed consumer devices, of course)
o *Does the best price:performance choice in any common consumer electronics*
*device NOT get better, faster, and CHEAPER over time?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/eSudn2SUkws/i3yWZnEcCQAJ>

E.g., my Android phones each get "better, faster, cheaper" over time:
3. $200 8GB Moto G with 4 cores & 1GB RAM
2. $130 32GB LG Stylo 3 Plus phablet with 8 cores & 2B RAM
1. $100 64GB Moto G7 phablet with 8 cores & 4GB RAM

Personally, I haven't yet understood why people pay 10 times as much???
o *What would a 10X more expensive phone actually buy me that actually matters?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/SfGKMN43_ss/KvnBasb3AQAJ>

Since consumer electronics (except highly marketed devices) constantly get
better, faster, and cheaper over time, that $150 64GB/4GB RAM dual-SIM will
soon be in your hands (I think all the European Moto G7s, for example, are
dual SIM.

> Still happy with my Moto G5+, which is now 2 years old.

Since we both _love_ our phones, you should post why you love it here:
o *I truly LOVE my current personal phone - do you love yours?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/RrF_gkWRU_g/scVpzf-uBwAJ>

My phones are so beloved, I only replace them when something happens.

What amazes me is that Apple owners, traditionally, seem to wait on long
lines outside the Apple store simply because they can't wait to ditch their
old phones every couple of years (they traditionally have that little
regard for what they previously bought only a couple of years prior).

--
Usenet is a great public potluck where adults exchange useful information.

[nospam]

In article <qud79i$f21$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Gmail doesn't like me so much

nobody does.

[Cohen]

Private data stored on the Internet? Of course! Backblaze and Restic
(client side encryption before uploading the data). Encrypting the data
yourself before uploading is wise.

--
Cohen, a 400-year-old AI which manifests itself by 'shunting'
through people. It is featured in the novels Spin State and Spin Control
by Chris Moriarty (2005).

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:15:49 +0100, Cohen wrote:

>>> Gmail doesn't like me [using VPN] so much

>>
>> nobody does.
>
> Private data stored on the Internet? Of course! Backblaze and Restic
> (client side encryption before uploading the data). Encrypting the data
> yourself before uploading is wise.

Hi Cohen,

Thank you Cohen, not only for ignoring nospam's always childish remarks,
but also for your purposefully helpful adult on-topic technical suggestion
of considering "Restic & Backblaze" for backup/storage where I agree with
you that backing up personal data to the cloud and storing private data on
the cloud should be done with careful thought (e.g., multiple levels of
encryption).

In the past, for data that must be stored in a cloud account, I've posted
TrueCrypt/Veracrypt advice for storing data inside of (multiply) encrypted
file containers (e.g., *.tc or *.vc files); and for data that doesn't need
to be on the net, I've posted advice for syncing your passwords over your
local LAN using Keepass (kdbx) databases, and syncing calendars over your
local LAN using ics files - all without _ever_ needing an "account" of any
sort (which all my solutions require to be general purpose solutions).

And I've posted advice for syncing contacts vcard (*.vcf) files across your
local lan, where I consider it rude to store other people's contact
information on the cloud.

o What are some key common databases you often SHARE between your desktop & mobile devices?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ovnHGVriYsI/0frYPkC3AQAJ>

As most here are aware, I advise general purpose solutions which are always
free, where of the five common consumer platforms, only iOS lacks freeware
for privacy-based standard platform-independent solutions.

For example, every platform other than iOS has freeware for standard *.tc
portable encrypted file containers, where, for example, you can store
private data (e.g., tax records, family photos, identification documents,
etc.) in singly or doubly encrypted file containers which work just fine on
any of the five common consumer platforms.
o Best [iOS] freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8GGgFKaW-70/WCXEXfVYBAAJ>
o Best [Android] freeware for portable encrypted file containers
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/cas1QJ_j2uI/4Uut0HGrBgAJ>

Likewise, every platform other than iOS has freeware for local calendar ics
file import (as far as anyone has posted to the Apple newsgroups anyway),
so that you don't need to put your private calendar on the Internet.
o Does a free offline non-Internet calendar app exist for iOS that imports/exports ICS text files?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/OzUOmgJLmZs/Xzx9DMxnFAAJ>

o Has anyone here ever set up a CalDAV server on Windows for use with Android CalDAV clients?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/52iSsFUQinE/AflgVrHVEAAJ>

Luckily, all five common consumer platforms have freeware to store
passwords in the standard mutually compatible encrypted kdbx format:
o Which free iOS KeePass kdbx-compatible password database manager do you recommend?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4bMe2LnPvPA/5h0THhXzDAAJ>

We're even beginning to document the Android/iOS free encryption keyboards!
o If not the default, what free Android keyboard are you using & why do you like it?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/CmZAI0OsXDs/fy-hAKwrBgAJ>

Having documented those privacy-based portable general-purpose freeware
solutions for all five common consumer platforms, I readily admit I was
unaware of Backblaze & Restic, so I appreciate this helpful additional
technical advice which hasn't come up in my queries in the past.

Hence, I thank you on my behalf and for the others on this public potluck
who benefit from the adult technical conversation - for *adding value* to
the technical conversation with your purposefully helpful suggestions.

Upon initial inspection, Backblaze appears to be a payware cloud solution
for something like $6 USD per month, so I won't delve deeper (unless that
first-pass skim assessment is incorrect):
o Backblaze Personal Backup (payware)
<https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-backup.html>

However, Restic appears to be a more general solution in that it's free.

o Restic freeware
<https://restic.net/>
"restic is a program that does backups right"
"restic is a backup program that is fast, efficient and secure.
It supports the three major operating systems (Linux, macOS, Windows)
and a few smaller ones (FreeBSD, OpenBSD)."
o Restic documentation
<https://restic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>
o Restic source & binaries:
<https://github.com/restic/restic/releases/tag/v0.9.6>

*Restic appears to be a keeper as a general purpose backup solution!*
o The resulting files can basically be stored anywhere you like
(including on the Google Cloud, according to the documentation)
--
Usenet is a wonderful public potluck where adults share topics of value.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/30/2019 08:06 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:19:25 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Google allows unlimited photo storage as long as the
>> greater dimension of each photo is 1600 pixels
>
> Hi The Real Bev,
> I was unaware that Google allows unlimited (smallish) photos!
> o Thanks for letting me (us) know (info is where Usenet is useful!)
>
>> I edit with Picasa, which is also good at finding my photos based on
>> WORDS -- flowers, snow, people, etc.
>
> That's exactly whey I don't put my private data (incl. photos) on the net!

I don't really worry about more-or-less public information. Anyone who
thinks they can profit from it is badly mistaken, a GOOD thing!

I've never tagged myself, so as far as I can tell I'm just another thing
recognized as a person by image recognition functions. Sometimes the
wrong guesses are funny.

> I have iCloud accounts that you _must_ have with each iOS device (AFAIK);
> where, intelligent people will note that only Apple _requires_ an account
> for mobile devices.

There are two different types of links -- one for apple people and one
for guests. Sometimes the invitations come with only the apple-people
thing. I don't know how easy it is to specify visibility by heathens.
Daughter is impatient with technology.

>> I have several gmail accounts, so I figure I have pretty much unlimited
>> free storage.
>
> Understood. Gmail doesn't like me so much 'cuz I use random VPN servers
> where Gmail hates people who log in one second from Texas, the next minute
> from Kansas, and five minutes later from the UK or Germany or whatever.

No shit. They get upset about new devices too. Whenever I use one I
get a flurry of messages on several accounts warning me of a possible
intrusion.

I wish I could set some sort of default for gmail. My grandson has a
couple of accounts that I logged in to to fix something, and now HIS
account comes up when I just type gmail.com -- which is easier than
finding the bookmark :-( It's especially annoying with youtube.

> Since consumer electronics (except highly marketed devices) constantly get
> better, faster, and cheaper over time, that $150 64GB/4GB RAM dual-SIM will
> soon be in your hands (I think all the European Moto G7s, for example, are
> dual SIM.
>
>> Still happy with my Moto G5+, which is now 2 years old.
>
> Since we both _love_ our phones, you should post why you love it here:
> o *I truly LOVE my current personal phone - do you love yours?*
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/RrF_gkWRU_g/scVpzf-uBwAJ>

I don't actually love it, but I like it a lot. What I HATE about it
(and I'm sure it's not Motorola/Lenovo's fault) is the constant nag
(which now happens only once a week) to upgrade to 8 (or maybe 9, who
knows or cares?) from 7. NOT going to do it, and I'd really like to
eliminate the nag -- I'm desperately afraid I will click the "don't ask
again, just DO it" button instead of 'Saturday' and 'Done' due to simple
clumsiness.

It was relatively cheap; the only non-removable crapware installed was
directly from google, not other entities; I've used less than half of
the available memory, which gives me a nice warm safe feeling; it works OK.

I'd like a better camera and/or a more camera-like interface, but I got
tired of trying camera apps and finding them wanting. The original
'camera' app was just fine, and updates made it less easy to use.

> My phones are so beloved, I only replace them when something happens.

I like the way Motorola/Lenovo Moto G works. Newer versions don't seem
to offer anything I want, though. The cameras are generally rated
toward the bottom, and that's the only thing that really bothers me.

> What amazes me is that Apple owners, traditionally, seem to wait on long
> lines outside the Apple store simply because they can't wait to ditch their
> old phones every couple of years (they traditionally have that little
> regard for what they previously bought only a couple of years prior).

Daughter swaps hers when it seems advantageous in some way, but wouldn't
dream of standing in a long line. I really don't want to know the
details :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
"I don't mind you peeing in the shower as long as you're actually
taking a shower." -- Marge Simpson

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:13:23 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> I don't really worry about more-or-less public information. Anyone who
> thinks they can profit from it is badly mistaken, a GOOD thing!

Bear in mind that you should assume every site on the net will be hacked,
where the _less_ information you make available, in general, the better.

For example, the photos you upload can be traced to the EXACT camera it was
taken from, which could be used to link social media accounts you may not
wish to be linked (as just one example of many).
o *Photos can be traced to individual smartphones*
<https://techxplore.com/news/2017-12-smartphone-cybercrime.html>

Of course, with a few seconds of purposeful editing of those photos (which
you can do with a batch problem such as Irfanview freeware), you can make
that cross correlation of all your photos to your exact camera much harder
(but not necessarily impossible).
o *A Survey on Digital Camera Image Forensic Methods*
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4266573_A_Survey_on_Digital_Camera_Image_Forensic_Methods>

> I've never tagged myself, so as far as I can tell I'm just another thing
> recognized as a person by image recognition functions. Sometimes the
> wrong guesses are funny.

See above where the photo itself can fingerprint to your exact camera.
o *Digital Cameras Have Unique Fingerprints*
<https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/digital_cameras.html>

o *Digital Camera Identification from Sensor Pattern Noise*
<http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/double.pdf>

>> I have iCloud accounts that you _must_ have with each iOS device (AFAIK);
>> where, intelligent people will note that only Apple _requires_ an account
>> for mobile devices.
>
> There are two different types of links -- one for apple people and one
> for guests. Sometimes the invitations come with only the apple-people
> thing. I don't know how easy it is to specify visibility by heathens.
> Daughter is impatient with technology.

This is a good question for the Apple-specific newsgroups...
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>

>> Understood. Gmail doesn't like me so much 'cuz I use random VPN servers
>> where Gmail hates people who log in one second from Texas, the next minute
>> from Kansas, and five minutes later from the UK or Germany or whatever.
>
> No shit. They get upset about new devices too. Whenever I use one I
> get a flurry of messages on several accounts warning me of a possible
> intrusion.

Yup. We agree. Gmail _hates_ VPN. Proxies too.

Luckily, protonmail doesn't seem to care about coming in from VPN but the
free version is limited to 150 messages per day.

One trick is to forward your Gmail to protonmail, so that you can obtain
the spam protection (which is one thing Google does reasonably well, if a
bit Draconian at times).

> I wish I could set some sort of default for gmail. My grandson has a
> couple of accounts that I logged in to to fix something, and now HIS
> account comes up when I just type gmail.com -- which is easier than
> finding the bookmark :-( It's especially annoying with youtube.

Yes. Those defaults can be set within the browser.
Given there are many browsers but each browser can be fingerprinted:
o http://panopticlick.eff.org
What I do is set up any given browser for one and only one purpose.

For example, if it's "gmail", then that one browser is set up for Gmail and
for nothing else. I don't use that browser for any other purpose.

Luckily, there are so many browsers out there that it's pretty easy to set
up each browser specifically for one purpose, where I've authored a few
threads on that topic in the past so I won't belabor the tactic here.
o *Discussion of two different privacy-related browser philosophies*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.comp.freeware/H4694--5znY/LOOCa11RBgAJ>

Since all my suggestions are intended to be actionable, (and most have
step-by-step tutorials where, interestingly, the iOS users count words as
"their" key indicator of what they consider to be 'complexity'), in the
future it might be nice to create a thread listing all the browsers, with
easy to click on download URLs, along with the instructions on how to
install the browser where it belongs on your file system.
o *Tutorial: How to install the free Brave privacy-based tor-enabled web browser where YOU want it to install*
(and how to save a full offline installer in the process)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.comp.freeware/bog50yqc_As/igWDXCO4AwAJ>

> I don't actually love it, but I like it a lot.

Bummer. I _loved_ my old $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus, and I love my brand new $100
Moto G7, which I only bought because I gave my LG Stylo 3 Plus to someone
who broke theirs.

It has almost everything I'd want for $100, including 64GB of storage and
4GB of RAM in 8 cores, where I always find it interesting that people play
that much for the California sales tax alone, on far less functional
phones.

> What I HATE about it
> (and I'm sure it's not Motorola/Lenovo's fault) is the constant nag
> (which now happens only once a week) to upgrade to 8 (or maybe 9, who
> knows or cares?) from 7. NOT going to do it, and I'd really like to
> eliminate the nag -- I'm desperately afraid I will click the "don't ask
> again, just DO it" button instead of 'Saturday' and 'Done' due to simple
> clumsiness.

Hmmmm.... my $100 Moto G7 is on Android 9 (and I'm happy with that,
particularly with the way Android Pie does screenshots & the fantastic ease
of keyboard switching (particularly useful for encryption keyboards):
o *If not the default, what free Android keyboard are you using & why do you like it?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/CmZAI0OsXDs>

I also love Android Pie for the simple fact that the world class Google
Pixel apps are ported to the latest Android operating systems, e.g., Gcam:
o Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo quality of results (but why?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/LtY49dG01mc>

And, most recently, as of this week, the Google offline dictation port:
o *Offline speech-to-text recorder/transcription unofficial Google Recorder*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/_Amn35T16NA>
Which, to my knowledge, is yet more privacy not available on iOS (AFAIK):
o *How do you run speech to text transcription offline on iOS?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/V-piSLZ_I3w>

But, to your point, even when I was on Nougat on the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus,
it never nagged me to update the OS (it was all done automatically, as
explained in this thread):
o *What "Android security patch level" is your Android phone currently at?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/WKsE8UROGOA/ZrwWceTPAQAJ>
Where I always find it hilarious iOS users are so swayed by Marketing
messages that they think iOS is safer even as Google proved iOS is
essentially untested software that simply releases garbage as frequently as
a bad case of iOS 13.x diarrhea releases untested crap.
o *When apologists claim iOS is "safer" than Android simply because of the "frequency" of release...*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/voFbGKpUoBo/Bfejm_I9EAAJ>

> It was relatively cheap; the only non-removable crapware installed was
> directly from google, not other entities; I've used less than half of
> the available memory, which gives me a nice warm safe feeling; it works OK.

Yes. Motorola (aka Lenovo) keeps the operating system "almost stock".

Mine only seems to have Motorola-specific "movements" such as the "chop
chop" motion to turn on and off the LED flashlight, for example.

> I'd like a better camera and/or a more camera-like interface, but I got
> tired of trying camera apps and finding them wanting. The original
> 'camera' app was just fine, and updates made it less easy to use.

I think you had tried the Google Gcam port, which is "said" to be one of
the best camera apps for overall quality of results, you weren't able to
install it on your older Android OS, as I recall... which is too bad
because I _love_ the Google Gcam APK port that I got working on my new Moto
G7.

Another camera app I love is the fantastic "timer" capability of this app.
o *What is a good TIMER photo app for Android?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/9GPU430iHUg/QvBBYk9FCAAJ>

>> My phones are so beloved, I only replace them when something happens.
>
> I like the way Motorola/Lenovo Moto G works. Newer versions don't seem
> to offer anything I want, though. The cameras are generally rated
> toward the bottom, and that's the only thing that really bothers me.

I understand the camera issue - but for the amount of money you'd spend
"just" to get a "better" camera, you could spend on a decent SLR, don't you
think?

Remember, the cost of our phones is about as much as the California sales
_tax_ people pay on the more expensive phones, which they then line up
outside the store on opening day to ditch, only a couple of years later, to
then again pay _another_ sales tax - just to get the latest colors (or
whatever they "think" they get that Marketing has sold them on).

It's one reason why those iPhones enjoy one of the most horrendous overall
cost of ownership possible for common consumer mobile devices.

> Daughter swaps hers when it seems advantageous in some way, but wouldn't
> dream of standing in a long line. I really don't want to know the
> details :-)

The facts show that most of those people waiting in those long lines are
loyal to Apple for sure, but amazingly, they're not in the least loyal to
their current phones - which is a classic mark of their brains falling for
(admittedly brilliant) marketing tactics.
o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

--
Usenet is a public potluck where purposefully helpful adults share ideas.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 30/12/2019 07.19, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/29/2019 12:50 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:18:01 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> I put photos that I want to share on google photos, previously
>>> the Picasa website which I liked a lot better. I put files that
>>> I want to share that are too big to go in email on dropbox.
>>> Anything else seems like way too much trouble as well as having
>>> the who-do-you-trust? problem.
>>
>> Hi The Real Bev,
>>
>> You and I go way back where I thank you for helping me understand
>> your use of the cloud that you just posted, which seems reasonable,
>> and which makes complete sense to use the cloud for things too big
>> for email that you wish to share with others who are far away.
>>
>> For example, pointing people to your photos that are too large to
>> email seems to be a perfect use of the cloud, where the main
>> problem is that you want to use the "free" cloud as much as
>> possible (knowing you and me), so it's likely only 'temporary'
>> photos are what you use the cloud for.
>
> Actually, no. Google allows unlimited photo storage as long as the
> greater dimension of each photo is 1600 pixels, so I edit them to
> that size and post them in nice organized albums. Filenames are the
> filedates. I keep my originals in one subdirectory and the edited
> photos in a different one. I've organized them nicely in albums, so
> I can find what I want easier there than on my own machine!

Here, what I read on Google was unlimited storage if you allow google to
adjust the compression/size of the photos. Which I do allow.

On the other hand, I uploaded some videos directly from the camera,
meaning way too big; a day later I downloaded to a directory, and indeed
they were smaller.

-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 52M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0535.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 42M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0536.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 40M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0538.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 37M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0539.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 14M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0540.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 24M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0541.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 37M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0542.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 8,9M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0543.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 19M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0544.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 44M Dec 27 22:19 DSC_0545.MOV
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 291M Dec 27 22:41 SAM_5721.AVI
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 554M Dec 27 22:42 SAM_5724.AVI

changed to:

-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 6,1M Dec 28 13:29 DSC_0535.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 4,5M Dec 28 13:29 DSC_0536.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 4,7M Dec 28 13:28 DSC_0538.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 8,5M Dec 28 13:29 DSC_0539.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 1,9M Dec 28 13:30 DSC_0540.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 5,2M Dec 28 13:30 DSC_0541.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 5,1M Dec 28 13:30 DSC_0542.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 880K Dec 28 13:31 DSC_0543.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 4,3M Dec 28 13:31 DSC_0544.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 16M Dec 28 13:31 DSC_0545.MOV <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 23M Dec 28 13:28 SAM_5721.AVI <
-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 554M Dec 28 13:29 SAM_5724.AVI =


Funny the last one not being reduced. Maybe if I try now it is reduced.

[...]

Yep, they did:

-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 31M Dec 30 21:28 SAM_5724(1).AVI


So, why bother to do myself the work? :-D

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/30/2019 11:46 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:13:23 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I don't really worry about more-or-less public information. Anyone who
>> thinks they can profit from it is badly mistaken, a GOOD thing!
>
> Bear in mind that you should assume every site on the net will be hacked,
> where the _less_ information you make available, in general, the better.

True, but I don't think there's anything known about me that could cause
me trouble. Put together everything I've ever posted/uploaded/whatever
and it's still not really useful to anyone.

> This is a good question for the Apple-specific newsgroups...
> o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
> o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>

Sorry, I don't want to deal with Apple people. My daughter is entirely
sufficient!

> One trick is to forward your Gmail to protonmail, so that you can obtain
> the spam protection (which is one thing Google does reasonably well, if a
> bit Draconian at times).

I generally just access it with an old version of Thunderbird, but all
google's products get linked together and seem to default to my
grandson's account. Easy enough to change to my account, but annoying
that I have to do it.

> Yes. Those defaults can be set within the browser.
> Given there are many browsers but each browser can be fingerprinted:
> o http://panopticlick.eff.org
> What I do is set up any given browser for one and only one purpose.

I like Firefox, which I've used since it was Netscape .9 and even
Mosaic! I use Chrome for stuff that Firefox can't handle, but it makes
me feel dirty. I've tried Opera and Seamonkey and something else, but
it's too much trouble. Maybe I should just get rid of all my google
cookies. Gotta think about that...

>> It was relatively cheap; the only non-removable crapware installed was
>> directly from google, not other entities; I've used less than half of
>> the available memory, which gives me a nice warm safe feeling; it works OK.
>
> Yes. Motorola (aka Lenovo) keeps the operating system "almost stock".
>
> Mine only seems to have Motorola-specific "movements" such as the "chop
> chop" motion to turn on and off the LED flashlight, for example.

I had a 'shake to turn on the camera' option, but that seems to have
disappeared with one of the recent updates. Every month or so I update
everything that wants to be updated and I pay no attention to what's
happening.

>> I'd like a better camera and/or a more camera-like interface, but I got
>> tired of trying camera apps and finding them wanting. The original
>> 'camera' app was just fine, and updates made it less easy to use.
>
> I think you had tried the Google Gcam port, which is "said" to be one of
> the best camera apps for overall quality of results, you weren't able to
> install it on your older Android OS, as I recall... which is too bad
> because I _love_ the Google Gcam APK port that I got working on my new Moto
> G7.

I went to the site you suggested in a previous post, but the link to the
app for MY camera was dead.

>> I like the way Motorola/Lenovo Moto G works. Newer versions don't seem
>> to offer anything I want, though. The cameras are generally rated
>> toward the bottom, and that's the only thing that really bothers me.
>
> I understand the camera issue - but for the amount of money you'd spend
> "just" to get a "better" camera, you could spend on a decent SLR, don't you
> think?

I've got a Canon A720IS (bought in 2008) which I chose because it has
real camera functions. It turns out I set the 'program' for something
generically useful and then leave it alone for the most part. I fell
while holding it in my hand making a skiing movie (the last words were
OH SHIT and then everything went black), which fall kept the lens cover
from closing completely. Aside from that, it still works fine. I'd
like more sharpness, but not enough to buy a Nikon equivalent, which
would have to be used anyway -- I like a viewfinder much better than a
screen. Mainly, though, it's just easier to carry a phone -- and I can
tuck it into my bra while I'm skiing!

> Remember, the cost of our phones is about as much as the California sales
> _tax_ people pay on the more expensive phones, which they then line up
> outside the store on opening day to ditch, only a couple of years later, to
> then again pay _another_ sales tax - just to get the latest colors (or
> whatever they "think" they get that Marketing has sold them on).

Don't get me started about our sales tax :-(

>> Daughter swaps hers when it seems advantageous in some way, but wouldn't
>> dream of standing in a long line. I really don't want to know the
>> details :-)
>
> The facts show that most of those people waiting in those long lines are
> loyal to Apple for sure, but amazingly, they're not in the least loyal to
> their current phones - which is a classic mark of their brains falling for
> (admittedly brilliant) marketing tactics.

I think she just doesn't want to get stuck learning a new system under
pressure. She's a tour director and wears her phone around her neck
because she has to be available to solve problems pretty much all the
time, and generally with her phone. If she's happy, I'm happy.

> o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

No idea what that means. Dead woman? Huh?


--
Cheers, Bev
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:32:54 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Here, what I read on Google was unlimited storage if you allow google to
> adjust the compression/size of the photos. Which I do allow.
>
> On the other hand, I uploaded some videos directly from the camera,
> meaning way too big; a day later I downloaded to a directory, and indeed
> they were smaller.

Thanks Carlos for adding value to the topic, which I, for one, was unaware
of (since I store my private data locally) - and which is purposefully
helpful useful information for those who do store their data in the 15GB of
free storage Google allots to each Google Account by default.

I wonder if the iCloud storage also compresses to keep things under the
rather puny 5GB free storage initially allotted to each iOS device owner
(with tricks to get more).

--
Usenet brings the best out of helpful adults when sharing technical value.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 21:09:24 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> True, but I don't think there's anything known about me that could cause
> me trouble. Put together everything I've ever posted/uploaded/whatever
> and it's still not really useful to anyone.

Hi The Real Bev,

I understand your sentiment, where, for example, I don't lock my outside
doors at night, nor do I lock the cars parked outside, nor the shed, etc.,
nor even my phone, since the protection needed is based on the perceived
threat.

Still, _some_ people on this newsgroup _need_ protection we speak of; so
it's good that we discuss why people who _need_ protection would store
their private data on the net (particularly sans strong encryption).

> Sorry, I don't want to deal with Apple people. My daughter is entirely
> sufficient!

Hehheh,... I deal aplenty with "Apple people". For the most part, they're
intuitive (IMHO) instead of factual - which is why - I posit anyway - which
is why they fall for the marketing hype.

I do admit Apple is brilliant at providing imaginary functionalty through
rather brilliant marketing - for example - Apple makes users _feel_ safe -
even when the facts clearly show iOS users are not any more (or less) safe
than Android users).
o *What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY/Bm40liKdEQAJ>

Almost to a person, these marketing-induced people think privacy is a
single link that Apple highly and loudly promotes (e.g., full-device
encryption), whereas intelligent people realize privacy is a chain of
links, every one of which (e.g., iOS 13 is so full of holes you could drive
a freight train through it) needs to be eliminated to have privacy (where
Google proved iOS is essentially untested software when shipped).

In fact, I ask EVERY person with an iPhone "why" they have it, and the
answers I get are almost 100% what Marketing fed them to believe (just as
what happens when I ask at the gas pump why people put Premium in a Honda
Civic).

There are two kinds of people: those who believe marketing; and adults.

> I like Firefox, which I've used since it was Netscape .9 and even
> Mosaic!

Yup. We all stated with mosaic, and then netscape, and then a bunch until
Firefox came about - and then it exploded to the point that we can now set
up a browser for each task - which allows us to optimize the settings for
that task (i.e., no adblock needed, for example).
o Discussion of two different privacy-related browser philosophies
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/55Yx7RtTzEI/cD55MlgjAQAJ>

Since I love to improve our knowledge, working together, I just authored a
new thread asking to improve my list of all known free browsers over here:
o *Do we have (yet) an actionable list of all free Windows & Linux web browsers*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/krNaXA-YEbw>

> I use Chrome for stuff that Firefox can't handle, but it makes
> me feel dirty.

I know what you mean on Chrome, where, at least you might consider SRWare
Iron, which is 'supposedly' a less-intrusive version of Chromium.

You can also use Epic or Opera, which are supposedly privacy-aware versions
of Chromium.

> I've tried Opera and Seamonkey and something else, but
> it's too much trouble. Maybe I should just get rid of all my google
> cookies. Gotta think about that...

I use them both, where Opera has advantages in being an autoproxy.

Since I like my suggestions to be 'actionable', here are some clicable urls
(not just for you, but for all people reading this thread to benefit from):
o SRWare Iron <https://www.srware.net/iron/>
o Opera <https://www.opera.com/download>
o Epic <https://www.epicbrowser.com/>
o Brave <https://brave.com/download/>
o Seamonkey <https://www.seamonkey-project.org/>

We should likely start a thread just on browsers, listing three things:
1. The download link
2. The claim to fame
3. The base (whether firefox, chromium, microsoft, or whatever)

>> Yes. Motorola (aka Lenovo) keeps the operating system "almost stock".

I too like that my Moto G7 is almost completely stock Android Pie.

>> Mine only seems to have Motorola-specific "movements" such as the "chop
>> chop" motion to turn on and off the LED flashlight, for example.
>
> I had a 'shake to turn on the camera' option, but that seems to have
> disappeared with one of the recent updates. Every month or so I update
> everything that wants to be updated and I pay no attention to what's
> happening.

Yeah. I have the shake to turn camera on also. The only one I use is the
chop chop though, since it's usually done in the dark and I don't have the
fingerprint turned on.

Interestingly, with the fingerprint reader turned off, my $130 LG Stylo 3
Plus works differently than my $100 Moto G7, where touching the back facing
fingerprint reader on the LG turned the screen on, while touching the same
back-facing fingerprint reader on the Moto G7 does nothing whatsoever.

At least it could turn the screen on. :(

As always, to continuosly improve our knowledge, I opened a thread on that:
o What happens when you touch the fingerprint reader on your Android phone?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/AYjoxZBTW0k>

> I went to the site you suggested in a previous post, but the link to the
> app for MY camera was dead.

Yeah. I saw your posts, as I recall, where Frank Slootweg was helping you
far better than I could. If it consoles you any, my first try with the
Google Gcam APK port failed, as did my first try with the Google Recorder
APK port - but the second attempt worked in both cases.

So not every APK that is said to work, actually works (which is fine).

Almost never do I fail at anything though (except on iOS, when you have to
"just give up" every single day doing what you do all the time on Android),
so I just kept trying, and now I have _both_ working beautifully on the G7!
o Google Gcam APK port (which only officially supports the Pixel)
o Google offline recorder & transcription port (also only for the Pixel)

Android is like Linux in that there's almost always, if not always, a way
to do whatever you want to do (e.g., remove the Google Account and still
have complete functionality - again privacy which isn't possible on iOS).

> I fell
> while holding it in my hand making a skiing movie (the last words were
> OH SHIT and then everything went black), which fall kept the lens cover
> from closing completely.

I have broken so many SLRs in my life that I will _never_ buy an SLR that
has a plastic ring holding the lens in place to the camera body.

> Don't get me started about our sales tax :-(

What I find interesting is that our sales tax (roughly under 10% but it
varies by county in California) is the cost of my entire phone, for people
who buy phones that are ten times more expensive - and then they wait in
line two years later at their first opportunity to _ditch_ their phone!

And yet, my 10x _less_ expensive phone does _more_ than theirs can ever do!
o *What would a 10X more expensive phone buy me that matters?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/SfGKMN43_ss/KvnBasb3AQAJ>

> I think she just doesn't want to get stuck learning a new system under
> pressure. She's a tour director and wears her phone around her neck
> because she has to be available to solve problems pretty much all the
> time, and generally with her phone. If she's happy, I'm happy.

Understood. People who buy iStuff tend to not be able to handle complexity,
where "sometimes" Apple brings out good simple stuff, like the first iPod
interface or the first iPhone interface, and maybe even their one-button
mouse, or their very few button iPads, etc.

The problem is that Apple simplicity tends to become primitive after a
decade of never progressing further (e.g., the primitive iOS launcher
compared to, oh, say, the modern Nova free launcher as one example).

Your daughter, for example, would likely be perfectly at home with an
iPhone that was a decade old, since the interface hasn't improved, whereas
her socks would be knocked off if she touched a modern Android interface of
today.

Still ... my grandkids... especially the youngest ones ... love the iPads!

>> o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>
>
> No idea what that means. Dead woman? Huh?

Hehhehheh... you have to _see_ things for what they really are.
o For example, Christy was punishing the local town mayor who didn't
support him; but what people were supposed to see was simply a traffic lane
closure.

In the case of Apple and the dead Chinese lady, what you're "supposed" to
see is that Apple "cares" about you so much that Apple is willing to let
you pay ten dollars for an Apple branded charger - but what was really
happening is that Apple sold a five dollar charger to you for ten dollars
all the while claiming the high ground (for a short time only mind you),
that they 'cared' that you didn't get electrocuted like the dead Chinese
lady did.

It was all a brilliant marketing gimmick designed to make you "think"
a. Apple cares about you so much that they'll discount their product
(For a short time only of course....)
b. And that only expensive Apple products won't electrocute you
(As if Apple owns Volts & Amps like nobody else can....)

The funny thing is that the Apple owners SUCKED THIS MARKETING MESSAGE UP.
o Which is why I never claim Apple marketing is not brilliant!

--
Apple Marketing is brilliant at making utter fools feel safe.

[Richmond]

I use this thing called FileApp:

https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fileapp-file-manager/id297804694

It allows you to make your phone into an ftp server, then you can
transfer files across wifi to any other o.s. with an ftp client.

[Arlen Holder]

Thanks for that pointer to the freeware "FileApp", which I presume is this?
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fileapp-file-manager/id297804694>

For _small_ files, FTP is fine; but for _large_ files, I wouldn't use FTP:
o *Simultaneously slide Windows Linux iOS Android files back and forth over USB*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/WohhLOTCYKw/n_ytNizaCAAJ>

For smaller files, or for when you want to use the local LAN, for Android,
"it just works" to mount the entire visible file system over WiFi as a
drive letter (on Windows). Although it would be nicer to use Samba/Cifs.
o *What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 for Samba/CIFs on Windows*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/3QQ8bAZeXNI/p7yqvwHrBQAJ>

For iOS, since I slide files back and forth (both ways) between the iOS
device & Windows or Linux, I haven't tried "mounting" the iOS device as a
drive letter on Windows.
o *Do you have a working freeware automatic sync between Android & Windows?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/7aOWwoEwsZ0/3f5qTpwBAgAJ>

For Android, there are plenty of threads on how to mount as a drive letter:
o *Tutorial to run any Windows command directly on Android over either USB or Wi-Fi*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/JrWLPRYO-TU/2gn6KqccBwAJ>

The salient question for experts is how to mount iOS as a drive letter on Windows.

[Arlen Holder]

New information from yesterday & today shows that they're scanning even
encrypted backups, and that there is even more reason to avoid uploading
personal data to the cloud, &, if you must, encrypt it separately first.

o *Apple has confirmed that it's automatically scanning images backed up to iCloud*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/dQb5mX1vZ7Y>

o *iCloud backups are _NOT_ encrypted*, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk>

Android:
o *Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/cas1QJ_j2uI/fCxcOVnxCAAJ>
iOS
o *Best freeware for portable encrypted file containers*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8GGgFKaW-70/WCXEXfVYBAAJ>

Apologies for the child-like progress on iOS newsgroups, where the EXACT
same OP (exact same words!) on an Android newsgroup is handled like adults
- but not on iOS newsgroups (which always appear to be filled to the brim
with children, sadly, due to the score of child-like Apple apologists).

Excerpt:
"*backed-up contact information and texts from*
*iMessage, WhatsApp and other encrypted services*
*remain available to Apple employees and authorities*"

--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful adults to share news items of value.

[Arlen Holder]

[Ned Latham]

Arlen Holder wrote:
>
> New information from yesterday & today shows that they're scanning even
> encrypted backups, and that there is even more reason to avoid uploading
> personal data to the cloud, &, if you must, encrypt it separately first.

You must not. No matter how good your encryption is, putting your data
in someone else's hands gives them and (for all you know) EVERY SPOOK ON
THE PLANET copies of everything you hold dear, and all the time in the
world to decrypt it.

----snip----

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 16:19:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the

> Internet (if so, for what gain over non-Internet methods?)

>
> What type of person stores private data on the cloud?
> o Technically astute people?
> o Technically non-astute people?
>

> For what gain?

Today, a classic case came up of using the cloud for contacts, which is not
only completley unnecessary, but downright rude.
o How to export Contacts from MOTO G4 Plus to e.g. a later MOTO G?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/ZxEjJh-MD_U>
--
It's downright rude to upload all your friend's contact info to the cloud.

[Arlen Holder]

From this thread on the Apple ng, today...
<https://nordvpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/cloud_security_meme.png>

o Who's cloud?, by Alan Browne
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_8wjSpmImrE>

[Robert Baer]

Why not?
All it takes is to FTP encrypted data to an un-published
oddball-named folder. Oddball in that the name uses hex representation
of otherwise un-useable characters (say, space and other non-printing
characters).

[Mayayana]

"Robert Baer" <rober...@localnet.com> wrote

That's a big topic. First, your use is not that of people
with "reasonable technical ability", which would probably
be most realistically described as someone who can set
up a Google Drive account, not someone who knows
how to encrypt files, or even thinks of it. People are
not storing commercial databases. They're storing things
they don't consider high security.

There are also security issues, privacy issues, ownership
issues... Peoples' opinions about those things are not
necessarily connected with their technical expertise. Look
at all the geeks with gmail accounts, who use Chrome. They
don't care about privacy or even security. They see all those
modern conveniences as just a giant nipple. They want to
suck milk and don't care who Mom is, as long as the milk is
easy to get and free.

Probably the most insidious effect of "cloud" is one that
most geeks don't even notice. It's a complex, calculated,
longterm strategy to own your life. It really is different to
let them hold your stuff. And it has legal ramifications. It's
like an extreme version of AOL. AOL tricked people into
thinking they were the Internet. Steve Case created a
sleazy trick. I remember the first time I logged on, I was
blocked by a message: "Want a new credit card?" There
were two buttons: Yes. Ask Me Later.
Huh? I soon learned that snake oil and pickpocketing were
the standard on this new Internet thing.

Cloud services today are far more widespread and intrusive.

Just yesterday I had two related experiences:

1) A friend who's a teacher was trying to access papers
sent to her by college students. Except they weren't sent.
They're on Google Drive. Links were sent. The students have
no idea what the difference is. They know how to type and
they know to write papers. They're unaware that Google is
actually middlemanning academia. I managed to figure out
how to download the paper, but by then my friend had lost
patience and wrote back, asking the student to email the
actual paper. It remains to be seen whether they can manage
that.

2) My brother was just released from rehab. He had a stroke.
I called him. He said his email wouldn't work. Hmm. After some
time I figured out the problem. He uses gmail. Google had
locked him out of his own email account, allegedly due to
lack of use. They had switched his settings to block non-Google
software/devices from getting his email! Worse, there was no way
to get in without having a cellphone where they could send
a security code. That, of course, has nothing to do with security.
A hacker could send them any old cellphone number. Google
was just holding his email hostage until they also got to know his
cellphone #! I gave them the number of a Tracphone that I
rarely turn on, got the code, got him back into his email. There
I was giving my phone number to a company I've come to view
as the root of all evil, and there was no way around it. If I
didn't, my brother wouldn't be able to see 2 months worth
of email.

That's the problem with cloud.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 28/04/2020 15.02, Mayayana wrote:

> Cloud services today are far more widespread and intrusive.
>
> Just yesterday I had two related experiences:
>
> 1) A friend who's a teacher was trying to access papers
> sent to her by college students. Except they weren't sent.
> They're on Google Drive. Links were sent. The students have
> no idea what the difference is. They know how to type and
> they know to write papers. They're unaware that Google is
> actually middlemanning academia. I managed to figure out
> how to download the paper, but by then my friend had lost
> patience and wrote back, asking the student to email the
> actual paper. It remains to be seen whether they can manage
> that.

There is another possibility they can do: send the homework as google
docs ;-) :-p

Oh, I have used it. It is fantastic if you don't mind much about
privacy. Two people on different continents can work on the same
document, seeing instantly what the other one writes/changes and making
comments; and further, one using Windows 7 and the other using Linux.

The alternative was working in turns on the document and emailing them,
one using an old Word version, the other using LO.

>
> 2) My brother was just released from rehab. He had a stroke.
> I called him. He said his email wouldn't work. Hmm. After some
> time I figured out the problem. He uses gmail. Google had
> locked him out of his own email account, allegedly due to
> lack of use. They had switched his settings to block non-Google
> software/devices from getting his email! Worse, there was no way
> to get in without having a cellphone where they could send
> a security code. That, of course, has nothing to do with security.
> A hacker could send them any old cellphone number. Google
> was just holding his email hostage until they also got to know his
> cellphone #! I gave them the number of a Tracphone that I
> rarely turn on, got the code, got him back into his email. There
> I was giving my phone number to a company I've come to view
> as the root of all evil, and there was no way around it. If I
> didn't, my brother wouldn't be able to see 2 months worth
> of email.
>
> That's the problem with cloud.

Rather the problem with public cloud systems.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Mayayana]

"Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

| Oh, I have used it. It is fantastic if you don't mind much about
| privacy.

I think that's an underappreciated aspect of successful
but deeply sleazy companies like Google, Apple and Facebook.
They put a lot of effort into usability. And in general, that's
all people care about. If it's easy and has cute icons, people
will use it.

|Two people on different continents can work on the same
| document, seeing instantly what the other one writes/changes and making
| comments; and further, one using Windows 7 and the other using Linux.
|

I've never understood that logic. I've never written anything
with anyone else. I can't imagine why anyone would. In this case,
my friend makes notes to highlight problems in the paper and then
sends it back for revision. Even that wouldn't benefit from real-time
sharing.

| > That's the problem with cloud.
|
| Rather the problem with public cloud systems.
|

Yes, I suppose you're right. Commercial cloud
services. But even that isn't quite right. There are
ways to use services commercially that are OK.
For instance, hosting website files on the webhosting
server. Getting email through a reputable company.

But cloud has been marketed as not being those things
but rather specifically being commercial online services,
often free, from big tech companies who have turned
to datamining/ads as a new business model. In general,
when we talk about cloud, that's what we're talking about.
The very idea of cloud in the public imagination is those
services. There's always the marketing vs the actuality.
In a similar way, people used to use software. Now,
suddenly, everyone's solving the world's problems with
"AI". No difference. But most people would say software
is a procedural tool and AI is....well... it's a super-smart
miracle that can do anything and may have no need
for humans soon. :)

[Frank Slootweg]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> 2) My brother was just released from rehab. He had a stroke.
> I called him. He said his email wouldn't work. Hmm. After some
> time I figured out the problem. He uses gmail. Google had
> locked him out of his own email account, allegedly due to
> lack of use. They had switched his settings to block non-Google
> software/devices from getting his email! Worse, there was no way
> to get in without having a cellphone where they could send
> a security code. That, of course, has nothing to do with security.
> A hacker could send them any old cellphone number. Google
> was just holding his email hostage until they also got to know his
> cellphone #! I gave them the number of a Tracphone that I
> rarely turn on, got the code, got him back into his email. There
> I was giving my phone number to a company I've come to view
> as the root of all evil, and there was no way around it. If I
> didn't, my brother wouldn't be able to see 2 months worth
> of email.

I can understand your (and your brother's) frustration, but AFAIK,
that scenario can't be true, unless your brother forgot his Google
Account password or/and enabled 2-Step Verification for that account.

If he had his password, he could just log into his Google Account
(*not* Gmail) and fix his access/security problems.

Many people who use Gmail 'forget'/are not aware that they also have a
*Google* account and that Gmail is just one of the many possible
services *under* (read: associated with) that account.

That does not mean that Google does not have stupid policies - because
they have - but with one's password one can recover from these
situations and a phone number is *not* needed, unless one has enabled
2-Step Verification. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt! :-)

BTW, if there ever is another time where a phone number is 'needed',
you/he might try to use a 'landline' number. Many services are able to
give the 'security-code' in a voice message instead of by SMS. (IIRC,
WhatApp is one such service, i.e. when the SMS fails, they just play a
voice message.)

> That's the problem with cloud.

Personally I do not consider e-mail to be 'cloud', but *Gmail* can
probably be classified as 'cloud', because they normally keep all your
e-mail, not just your recent e-mail.

Do you consider your normal MSP (Mail SP) to be 'cloud'?

[Mayayana]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| I can understand your (and your brother's) frustration, but AFAIK,
| that scenario can't be true, unless your brother forgot his Google
| Account password or/and enabled 2-Step Verification for that account.
|
| If he had his password, he could just log into his Google Account
| (*not* Gmail) and fix his access/security problems.
|

No. He had his password. TBird said login failed.
So I went to the website. I entered his username
and password. It told me that due to a period of
non-use they had disabled "insecure apps". There
was no option to answer a secret question. They
provided two options: Provide a phone # for a
code to be messaged to or provide a second email
address. In the latter case they would "consider the
request and let me know"!

You may have not seen it if you're logging in with
something like an Android phone or Chromebook. He
was using Mozilla software on Windows.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with
alleged security concerns. They could see that he was
accessing his email from the same place he always had.
It showd in his account settings.
And providing a phone # doesn't confirm his ID. But they
insisted it might have been hacked and so they needed
a phone # before I could access the account settings
to turn off the anti-non-Google setting that was blocking
TBird.

If you use gmail and were not aware of that you might
want to get a backup email address. While I was in the
settings I also disabled other things like linking youtube
viewing history to gmail. (?) Those can't even be disabled.
The options are Cancel and Pause. What does pause mean?
I assume it means that Google is going to flip the setting
back without asking. Their behavior is outrageous. Yet
people put up with it.

| Personally I do not consider e-mail to be 'cloud', but *Gmail* can
| probably be classified as 'cloud', because they normally keep all your
| e-mail, not just your recent e-mail.
|
| Do you consider your normal MSP (Mail SP) to be 'cloud'?

As I wrote in my response to Carlos, cloud is really a
marketing scheme for an online services model that takes
control from you and rents you your own data, devices and
software. It's a scheme to train people to believe that
they don't have any reasonable expectation to control
their data or even to buy software.

In that respect, I regard gmail as cloud. I regard Google
docs as cloud. I don't regard my own email as cloud. Some
of it is from the webhost and some is from my ISP. Both
are paid for. Neither tries to pull the kind of sleaze that
Google does. Neither is claiming the right to read my email,
keep copies, or secretly "log me in" so that I can be tracked
online via browser or offline via phone.

There was an interesting 60 Minutes episode Sunday.
60 minutes is an American news magazine TV show. It
was all about a company called Bluedot that's been making
deals with spyware companies to create vast, informative
data troves. They provided tracking of people in California
to see whether people are obeying lockdown orders. The
state of CA is paying for the data. They
claim it's "anonymized", of course. What I found interesting
was that Bluedot, in their claiming to respect privacy, claim
they're only getting location data from advertiser spyware
on phones. They almost certainly get it from Google and
Apple, too, as well as the phone service companies like
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, but none of the parties wants people
to think that.

I was struck by how odd that was. They're trying to
reassure the public about privacy by claiming that your
phone company is not selling your location data, and your
phone OS maker is not selling your data. Don't worry, only
the numerous spyware apps on your phone, tracking your
location and personal data, which you probably don't even
know are installed, are selling your personal data! But maybe
they say that because the spyware apps can at least
claim that you agreed to that by "installing" their app. And
much of it is the same thing, anyway. If you have a Samsung
phone with Verizon service, Google and Verizon can track you.
If you use Waze then Google can track you. If Waze shows
ads those may be Google/Doubleclick. These things can't
be realistically separated. And it wouldn't make sense to
think that any of those companies is going to pass up the
chance to make a side income from selling personal data.

[123456789]

On 4/28/2020 7:04 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> 2) My brother was just released from rehab. He had a stroke.
>> I called him. He said his email wouldn't work. Hmm. After some
>> time I figured out the problem. He uses gmail. Google had
>> locked him out of his own email account, allegedly due to
>> lack of use. They had switched his settings to block non-Google
>> software/devices from getting his email! Worse, there was no way
>> to get in without having a cellphone where they could send
>> a security code. That, of course, has nothing to do with security.
>> A hacker could send them any old cellphone number. Google
>> was just holding his email hostage until they also got to know his
>> cellphone #! I gave them the number of a Tracphone that I
>> rarely turn on, got the code, got him back into his email. There
>> I was giving my phone number to a company I've come to view
>> as the root of all evil, and there was no way around it. If I
>> didn't, my brother wouldn't be able to see 2 months worth
>> of email.
>
> I can understand your (and your brother's) frustration, but AFAIK,
> that scenario can't be true, unless your brother forgot his Google
> Account password or/and enabled 2-Step Verification for that account.

Google also offers 10 backup codes for those of us who do use 2FA. In my
case I've needed and used them when my phone or texting was down. Also
when I open my account on a strange device and didn't want my regular
password remembered since the backup codes can only be used once. I
always carry a few in my wallet for emergencies. (They are easily
disguised in case I lose my wallet)...

[Frank Slootweg]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | I can understand your (and your brother's) frustration, but AFAIK,
> | that scenario can't be true, unless your brother forgot his Google
> | Account password or/and enabled 2-Step Verification for that account.
> |
> | If he had his password, he could just log into his Google Account
> | (*not* Gmail) and fix his access/security problems.
> |
>
> No. He had his password. TBird said login failed.
> So I went to the website. I entered his username
> and password.

*Which* 'website'? The Gmail website or the Google Account website?
Two *related*, but totally different animals! That was/is the point
I'm making in the part you snipped. (I hope you read and understood it.)

> It told me that due to a period of
> non-use they had disabled "insecure apps".

Disabling and enabling "insecure apps" (actually 'Less secure app
access' (<https://myaccount.google.com/lesssecureapps>)) is a *user*
setting in the *Google* (*not* Gmail, *not* Thunderbird) account.

No offense, but I think you just did the 'wrong' thing in the 'wrong'
place. Quite an understandable 'error' and the kind which happens to a
lot of people in these groups.

BTW, if your brother is using IMAP, he can use OAuth2 instead of
"insecure apps". If he's using POP3, he can use (Google) App Passwords.
Yes, other cans-of-worms, but those are Google's ways! :-(

> There
> was no option to answer a secret question. They
> provided two options: Provide a phone # for a
> code to be messaged to or provide a second email
> address. In the latter case they would "consider the
> request and let me know"!
>
> You may have not seen it if you're logging in with
> something like an Android phone or Chromebook. He
> was using Mozilla software on Windows.

That's my setup as well. Thunderbird on Windows (8.1) and access the
Google Account or/and Gmail web-mailer via Internet Explorer or Google
Chrome.

> And of course, none of this has anything to do with
> alleged security concerns. They could see that he was
> accessing his email from the same place he always had.
> It showd in his account settings.
> And providing a phone # doesn't confirm his ID. But they
> insisted it might have been hacked and so they needed
> a phone # before I could access the account settings
> to turn off the anti-non-Google setting that was blocking
> TBird.

Yes, as I said/confirmed Google does have stupid policies.

[...]

[Carlos E.R.]

On 28/04/2020 15.40, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | Oh, I have used it. It is fantastic if you don't mind much about
> | privacy.
>
> I think that's an underappreciated aspect of successful
> but deeply sleazy companies like Google, Apple and Facebook.
> They put a lot of effort into usability. And in general, that's
> all people care about. If it's easy and has cute icons, people
> will use it.

I don't care about icons :-P

But I do care about *easy*, because the other participant considers even
copying a file difficult. Change something from one menu position to
another, and he is stuck.

> |Two people on different continents can work on the same
> | document, seeing instantly what the other one writes/changes and making
> | comments; and further, one using Windows 7 and the other using Linux.
> |
>
> I've never understood that logic. I've never written anything
> with anyone else. I can't imagine why anyone would. In this case,
> my friend makes notes to highlight problems in the paper and then
> sends it back for revision. Even that wouldn't benefit from real-time
> sharing.

Well, I thought the same as you, till I tried. And non intentionally, as
each of us were making the plan at the same time, we noticed we saw
changes from the other side instantly.

Like "we will route via this city on the morning" to "not in the
morning, remember we have to do that".

It turned to a chat.

>
> | > That's the problem with cloud.
> |
> | Rather the problem with public cloud systems.
> |
>
> Yes, I suppose you're right. Commercial cloud
> services. But even that isn't quite right. There are
> ways to use services commercially that are OK.
> For instance, hosting website files on the webhosting
> server. Getting email through a reputable company.

I should have said "free public cloud systems". Another one with a
contract and in a country with firm privacy laws is quite another thing.

> But cloud has been marketed as not being those things
> but rather specifically being commercial online services,
> often free, from big tech companies who have turned
> to datamining/ads as a new business model. In general,
> when we talk about cloud, that's what we're talking about.
> The very idea of cloud in the public imagination is those
> services. There's always the marketing vs the actuality.
> In a similar way, people used to use software. Now,
> suddenly, everyone's solving the world's problems with
> "AI". No difference. But most people would say software
> is a procedural tool and AI is....well... it's a super-smart
> miracle that can do anything and may have no need
> for humans soon. :)

I doubt Google does datamining on the contents of google docs. But they
might.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Mayayana]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| > It told me that due to a period of
| > non-use they had disabled "insecure apps".
|
| Disabling and enabling "insecure apps" (actually 'Less secure app
| access' (<https://myaccount.google.com/lesssecureapps>)) is a *user*
| setting in the *Google* (*not* Gmail, *not* Thunderbird) account.
|

And that's what they turned off. And that's
what I re-enabled. And then it worked. And now
his email is working again. To reiterate:

They disabled non-Google access (which they call
less secure apps), giving the excuse that the account
hadn't been accessed for awhile. I then *had to* give them
a cellphone number and accept a text message in order
to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I looked
through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd
have to give them a phone number.
Maybe it would have worked to buy a Chromebook.
Maybe it would have worked for him to install Chrome.
I don't know. Those options are absurd.

By your own description they must have been the right
settings because that's where I turned off the blocking.
You know better than I do if you use gmail, but I know
what they did in this case. Maybe it's a new trick. I
don't know. I feel like I need a shower now just talking
about actually visiting the bowels of Google's lair. :)

[123456789]

Mayayana wrote:

> They disabled non-Google access (which they call less secure apps),
> giving the excuse that the account hadn't been accessed for awhile.
> I then *had to* give them a cellphone number and accept a text
> message in order to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I
> looked through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd have
> to give them a phone number.

I must admit that I'm glad to hear that Google makes it difficult
to enter someone's account without the proper credentials...

[Mayayana]

"Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

| I doubt Google does datamining on the contents of google docs. But they
| might.
|

I assume. That's their business model. And they lie.
So it would be crazy for them not to datamine everywhere
possible. And it's certain they'll lie about it. Remember
the streetview incident? They were caught collecting
any possible data from private wifi as they drove around.
Then they lied about that and said it was an accident.
Then they lied and said it was a "rogue engineer". They
just lie.


https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/30/google_slurp_ok/

It's an amoral corporation, run and staffed by people who
think they're amazing geniuses, who prefer to have their
cellphone tell them what they should do today, who think
they're helping the world, and most of them are game-addicted
geeks with the emotional age of about 11. Eric
Schmidt was supposed to be the staff adult, but he was worse.
We had a very morally questionable person managing a lot of
naive, savant children.

Schmidt tried to run Hillary's campaign in 2016. His plan was
to virtually steal the election by doing something like was done
with Brexit -- use datamining to engineer every individual vote.
In the process he even planned how they could exploit young
people to do the work, pay them a pittance, and fire them
all at the soonest possible moment. Yet another example of
a faulty personality who thinks he's so smart that democracy
and other peoples' rights are an obstacle to him helping
the world. (Sound familiar? Billy Gates... Lord Jobs...)

http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75531-google-s-schmidt-drew-up-draft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html

Some might say the means would have justified the end to
keep Trump out. But as bad as Trump is, I can't see justifying
such dishonest, mean-spirited sleaze in order to keep him
out. And I'm not even sure Hillary would have been so much
better. Like Biden, she worked for the banks. But she was
also arrogant, seemingly believing it was her turn to be hotshot.
Politics? Who cares? Democratic values? Who cares? She just
wanted a turn at being boss and no doubt would have
continued her husband's tradition of plutocracy masquerading
as progressivism. Which is why she lost. The youth, especially,
saw through the scam.

[Mayayana]

"123456789" <12...@12345.com> wrote

I don't see where you get that. He had a password and
was accessing the account from the same IP address he's
always accessed it from. I'd call that crdentials.
They acknowledged in the settings that the location of
his computer was one historically used. That is his location was
known from past usage. So he had his username, password,
and he was logging in from the same IP he'd always logged
in from. And they chose to define that as a likely hack.

My phone number/location was new, unknown to Google
and not near where my brother lives. Yet they accepted that
as a security test. That's not credentials. It's just mickey mouse
excuses for spyware and data collection.

You could have done the same thing if you'd known his
password. A phone number means nothing. Probably
someone in China could get into his account by providing
a phone #. You call that security?

If you don't mind the hassle of having to get a text and
enter a code every time you check your email, and they
know your phone number is you, then that may be idiocy but
at least it's increased security. Demanding any old phone
number is nothing more than sleazy datamining. What would
have been *really* protecting his account would have been
if they'd set up secret questions, like everyone else does.
Even the IRS will let me in if I can answer the secret questions.
Like what was your first pet's name. That's a safe way to
allow people access and to let them get in if they've
forgotten their password.
But Google doesn't seem to have any such function. Why?
Because they're looking for excuses to tie their tracking of
your phone location and usage to your email ID.

[Frank Slootweg]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | > It told me that due to a period of
> | > non-use they had disabled "insecure apps".
> |
> | Disabling and enabling "insecure apps" (actually 'Less secure app
> | access' (<https://myaccount.google.com/lesssecureapps>)) is a *user*
> | setting in the *Google* (*not* Gmail, *not* Thunderbird) account.
>
> And that's what they turned off. And that's
> what I re-enabled. And then it worked. And now
> his email is working again. To reiterate:
>
> They disabled non-Google access (which they call
> less secure apps), giving the excuse that the account
> hadn't been accessed for awhile. I then *had to* give them
> a cellphone number and accept a text message in order
> to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I looked
> through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd
> have to give them a phone number.

It's still vague! I don't care what 'they' did or did not do. I only
care about what *you* did or did not do.

Another try:

When you had not given the phone number yet, could you log into the
*Google* account (*not* Gmail, *not* Thunderbird) or not?

If you could log into the Google account, you could have re-enabled
'Less secure app access' yourself.

If you could not log into the Google account, why not?

So nevermind Thunderbird and Gmail, concentrate on accessing and using
the *Google* account.

> Maybe it would have worked to buy a Chromebook.
> Maybe it would have worked for him to install Chrome.
> I don't know. Those options are absurd.

As I said, those 'options' are not needed. Internet Explorer and
probably any other somewhat decent browser would have worked fine.

> By your own description they must have been the right
> settings because that's where I turned off the blocking.
> You know better than I do if you use gmail, but I know
> what they did in this case. Maybe it's a new trick. I
> don't know. I feel like I need a shower now just talking
> about actually visiting the bowels of Google's lair. :)

Again, it's not about them, but about you. We *know* the 'Less secure
app access' setting was wrong. What we don't know is *why* *you* could
not *fix* it, because - as I said - it's a normal user settable setting.

[Leo]

On 2020 Apr 28, , Mayayana wrote
(in article <r89t2t$p8$1...@dont-email.me>):

[123456789]

Mayayana wrote:
> 123456789 wrote

>> I'm glad to hear that Google makes it difficult to enter someone's
>> account without the proper credentials...

> I don't see where you get that. He had a password and was accessing
> the account from the same IP address he's always accessed it from.
> I'd call that crdentials.

Apparently not the correct credentials or you'd be able to get in.
Course it could be a Google screw-up but IMO very unlikely...

> If you don't mind the hassle of having to get a text and enter a code
> every time you check your email,

That's the more secure 2FA that Google offers and I agree it would be a
hassle. However Google also offers a less secure 2FA that verifies a new
device only *once*. That's the one I use. It keeps a bad guy from
signing in on a strange device even if he knows the password. But if he
happens to get possession of one of my authorized devices... :-O

> What would have been *really* protecting his account would have been
> if they'd set up secret questions, like everyone else does.

Many folks 'secret' questions can be guessed or researched so often are
not that secure. When required I use code names for the answers but of
course I have to be sure to record them.

> But Google doesn't seem to have any such function. Why? Because

> they're looking for excuses to...

Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar... ;)

[Leo]

On 2020 Apr 28, , Leo wrote
(in article<0001HW.2458CB3200...@News.Individual.Net>):

> On 2020 Apr 28, , Mayayana wrote
> (in article <r89t2t$p8$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> > "Carlos E.R."<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
> >
> > > I doubt Google does datamining on the contents of google docs. But they
> > > might.
> >
> > I assume. That's their business model. And they lie.
> > So it would be crazy for them not to datamine everywhere

> > possible...

Oops, I had no intention to respond to this thread. Sorry. Carry on.

leo

[Frank Slootweg]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "123456789" <12...@12345.com> wrote
>
> | > They disabled non-Google access (which they call less secure apps),
> | > giving the excuse that the account hadn't been accessed for awhile.
> | > I then *had to* give them a cellphone number and accept a text
> | > message in order to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I
> | > looked through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd have
> | > to give them a phone number.
> |
> | I must admit that I'm glad to hear that Google makes it difficult
> | to enter someone's account without the proper credentials...
>
> I don't see where you get that. He had a password and
> was accessing the account from the same IP address he's
> always accessed it from. I'd call that crdentials.
> They acknowledged in the settings that the location of
> his computer was one historically used. That is his location was
> known from past usage. So he had his username, password,
> and he was logging in from the same IP he'd always logged
> in from. And they chose to define that as a likely hack.
>
> My phone number/location was new, unknown to Google
> and not near where my brother lives. Yet they accepted that
> as a security test. That's not credentials. It's just mickey mouse
> excuses for spyware and data collection.

You describe all kind of things 'they' 'did'. Did you actually speak
to them or is all of this only what their *website* 'did'?

[Rewind:]

> They acknowledged in the settings that the location of
> his computer was one historically used. That is his location was
> known from past usage. So he had his username, password,
> and he was logging in from the same IP he'd always logged
> in from. And they chose to define that as a likely hack.

"in the settings" seems to confirm that you *were* logged in to the
*Google account*. If so, why didn't you just fix the 'Less secure app
access' setting?

Did you at any time try to login into the *Gmail* webmailer? In the
Gmail inbox there should have been a message from Google, describing the
alleged security problem and how to fix it.

Again, all of this is quite 'normal' for Google/Gmail, but what you're
telling us just doesn't add up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Google isn't being stupid. What I
*am* saying is that despite Google being stupid, you should be able to
jump through Google's hoops without needing to provide a phone number.

> Demanding any old phone
> number is nothing more than sleazy datamining. What would
> have been *really* protecting his account would have been
> if they'd set up secret questions, like everyone else does.
> Even the IRS will let me in if I can answer the secret questions.
> Like what was your first pet's name. That's a safe way to
> allow people access and to let them get in if they've
> forgotten their password.
> But Google doesn't seem to have any such function. Why?
> Because they're looking for excuses to tie their tracking of
> your phone location and usage to your email ID.

[Still not defending Google:]

Your Recovery phone number doesn't have to be a smartphone, probably
can be a 'landline' and doesn't have to be the same as your normal phone
number, so tracking your location has little to do with it.

As to secret questions: That's one possibility with its advantages and
disadvantages. Google chose Recovery phone number or/and Recovery email
address. I use the latter.

In the funny-in-a-sarcastic-way department:

While checking some of these things in my Google account, I got a
'Security alert'/'New device signed in to' e-mail message and a
'Security alert for your linked Google Account'/'New sign-in to your
linked account' e-mail message! So there you go! :-)

[Mayayana]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| "in the settings" seems to confirm that you *were* logged in to the
| *Google account*. If so, why didn't you just fix the 'Less secure app
| access' setting?
|

Read my last post to you. You keep missing what
I'm saying. I logged in. I fixed it. But I couldn't log
in until I gave them a cellphone number to send an
extra code to. This all happened in connection with my
brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.

| Your Recovery phone number doesn't have to be a smartphone, probably
| can be a 'landline' and doesn't have to be the same as your normal phone
| number, so tracking your location has little to do with it.
|

Probably can be a landline? Either it can or it
can't. Either way, my phone number(s) are none
of their business.

| Google chose Recovery phone number or/and Recovery email
| address. I use the latter.

But that wasn't set up. Even if I were to allow
Google to send me an email, there was no email
set up as the alternate for sending a code to.
Their offer was that I could give them one and
then they'd "let me know their decision" about
whether I'd provided sufficient evidence that my
brother was my brother. I'm guessing sufficient
evidence probably doesn't include non-gmail
secondary emails.

I find it amazing that reasonably intelligent, tech-
educated people would not only use such a service
but would even defend it.

[Mayayana]

"123456789" <12...@12345.com> wrote

| Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar... ;)
|

Huh? You think I'm lying about my experience with
Google because I'm a liberal? Interesting. Actually
I'm not really political. I believe in fairness and common
decency, whatever party that is. Though I do feel that
psychopaths are probably not the best choice for
president.

But I do happen to have access to magical COVID
cures. If you want to give me your Gmail address I'll
be happy to send you my new catalog. There's a sale
this week on Windex (R) and syringes. If you prefer
Fantastik (R) I can send you an injector bottle for
20% off. Protect yourself and your family while you
can. With Windex (R) StreakFree (R) you can kill
all virus and get smooth skin at the same time. Order
4 and you get a free MAGA hat. Order 10 and you get an
official Donald J. Trump silver dollar. **

Order 20 and you also get a one-gallon jug of
dish soap, which will kill all virus, bacteria, mice,
mosquitoes, ticks, and Democrats on contact. You
only need one drop on your MAGA hat. It's a $79.99
value!!

** Note: This offer is for a commemorative coin only.
This coin is not legal tender and may not be composed
of silver or other metals. However, it is an official,
collectible coin and does, indeed, look sort of silver.

[123456789]

> 123456789 wrote

>> Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar... ;)

> You think I'm lying about my experience with Google because I'm a
> liberal?

Nope. I believe your experience. It's your paranoiac anti-Google rants
that I'm chuckling about (notice the winky?).

> Though I do feel that psychopaths are probably not the best choice
> for president.

And you have proved my point nicely... ;)

[Unsteadyken]

In article <r8a6m2$6n6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mayayana says...

> This all happened in connection with my
> brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
> triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.
>

Perhaps he failed to respond promptly to security alerts from Google who
then upped the security on his account.

Also if inactive account manager is enabled, the entire account is
deleted if no activity is detected within a set time period as Google
assumes you have popped your clogs.

"This is just a reminder that Inactive Account Manager is enabled for
your Google Account.
Your current settings are:
You will be notified 9 months after your last activity:
Delete your account once all actions have been completed."




--
Ken

[Unsteadyken]

In article <r8a6m2$6n6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mayayana says...

> This all happened in connection with my
> brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
> triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.
>

[Mayayana]

"Unsteadyken" <unste...@gmail.com> wrote

| Perhaps he failed to respond promptly to security alerts from Google who
| then upped the security on his account.
|

Maybe. He couldn't have replied to a unilateral
decision by Google, since he was in the hospital.
Then again, if they were warning him that he faced
lockdown for not using the account, he wouldn't
be likely to get that message. :)

I always knew I didn't want gmail but I actually
didn't realize what a Rube Goldberg monstrosity it is.

| Also if inactive account manager is enabled, the entire account is
| deleted if no activity is detected within a set time period as Google
| assumes you have popped your clogs.
|

Thanks. I guess I should check that for him.

[Arlen Holder]

A relevant thoughtful question is what data do we have that actually
"needs" the cloud, given that the cloud is simply someone else's computer.

While corporations can have thousands of people accessing the same data,
individuals don't normally have those types of "cloud" needs.

And while people can "share" photos and calendar events, in general what
people put on the cloud is far more than the stuff they wish to share (why
would they encrypt it, for example, if they wished to share it with the
world)?

Assuming therefore we're not discussing corporate or sharing needs, then
the question becomes what on earth would people even want to put on the
cloud that is there personal data?

This seems to be the type of data that lends itself to cloud storage:
o Email (active & perhaps some archives)
o ? anything else ?

For non-technical people, this may also lend itself to cloud storage:
o Calendars (active & perhaps old archives)
o ? anything else ?

For most people, this may be data that almost never should be on the cloud:
o Contacts
o Call logs
o SMS/MMS messages
o Photos & videos
o Documents in general
o Passwords in particular
o Application backups (e.g., APKs, IPAs, MSI's, etc.)
o Application data backups (e.g., offline maps, POIs, etc.)
o Settings backups
o Anything having to do with location
o ? anything else ?

One could argue any one of these "lend themselves" to cloud storage,
depending on use model and particularly on "sharing" or access from
multiple machines; but if we care about privacy, we would want as
little on "the cloud" as possible, where even email (via POP) could be
removed from the cloud when read.

Personally, the only things I keep "on the cloud" are my email...
o Everything else is synchronized as needed on my local LAN storage.
--
Privacy is a thousand links in a long chain of technical events.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 12:18:35 -0800, Adam wrote:

> Thanks, I kept getting the "account action required" message about
> the email address that was entered. So, I went to "Settings" and
> searched for "account" and did a "Remove Account".
>
> Now, I get a message complaining about
> "Backup - Need to set the backup account".
>
> It just goes in circles. :-)

Hi Adam,

I don't get _any_ of that, but I can imagine that Google is desperate to
get you to give them all your data. :)

Both Google & Apple survive by convincing people to put their data on their
servers - which they then use to their advantage - and not to yours (IMHO).

Note the distinction between having a Google Account and setting the phone
_to_ a Google Account. You can have a Google Account _without_ setting the
phone operating system to that account.

For example, if you want, you can have a Google Account for email, but just
not get your email on the Android phone using the Gmail App; you can use
_any_ other Mail User Agent (MUA) other than Gmail though, such as K9Mail.

For Google Maps, there's no reason to need to log in, although, as I
mentioned, for a while (about a year) the Google Maps app required you to
log into it in order to download offline maps (but I think they fixed that
when I moved to Android 10 a few months ago).

For the YouTube App, you can do almost everything without logging into an
account, as I recall, except subscribing. But, if you use the freeware
NewPipe replacement for the crappy YouTube app, you can not only
anonymously subscribe to a YouTube channel, but you'll never see any
advertisements if you use the NewPipe App instead of the YouTube app (in my
humble opinion, only morons use the YouTube App because NewPipe is just
about the best there is on this planet for freeware to replace it).

For Google Play, as I recall, you need to log in to download APKs, but then
you can log out, or, you can do what I do which is use the free Aurora
Store scraper, which pulls the EXACT SAME APKs off the Google Play Store,
only anonymously (and with a far greater choice of filters, e.g., you can
filter out Google apps, or payware, or adware, or even any apps that use
the Google Services Framework, etc.).

Unlike with iOS, there's nothing you can't do on an Android phone without a
Google Account set up in the phone, where I should know as I use the phone
a lot, and I do not have a Google Account set up in the phone.

There are freeware calendars (I use Simple Mobile Tools) and freeware SMS
apps (I use PulseSMS) so you're not beholden to Google Apps in the least as
far as I know. (We should probably create a thread of all the one-to-one
replacements for Google Apps.)

I do my backup using the PC where I have terabytes of disk space, so I'm
not sure how Google does backups. But I'm sure there is a setting to turn
"sync" off somewhere in the operating system settings. For example, in my
"Accounts" section, at the bottom is a "Automatically sync data" slider
which is turned off.

I also have in my settings for "System", a "Backup" slider, which, as you
can imagine, is set to off.

We probably should author an entire thread on all the steps necessary to
set up an unrooted Android phone to zero Google apps. Sigh.