Nuno Silva wrote:
Speaking of which, how does signal fit in the rest of the system, is it
self-contained, or does it do anything like wanting to be the default
contacts app or the default messaging app?
Does it need more than its own contact store? (I'm assuming Android's
"protected storage" for contacts, where available, at least means it
won't access contacts that haven't been explicitly allowed for other
apps, although I wish this feature also allowed to say which apps can
access which contacts or even which fields.)
Hi Nuno,
Every VOIP app wants your contacts but no app actually need them, as far as I'm aware, given there are dialers for all the apps that I am aware of.
I have Talkatone, for example, on an iPad, and I can make calls and text
over the Internet (usually on Wi-Fi as it doesn't have a SIM card slot).
Looking up Signal in particular, apparently it does not ask to be your default contacts or default dialer/phone app but it "can" be your default
SMS app if you set it to be so.
Looking it up for you, apparently Signal's identity is phone-number-based (with a username layer added in 2024) where on iOS you can share "some" contacts but with Android read contacts permission is all or none.
Looking up whether a keypad dialer exists for Signal, it does, just as it exists for WhatsApp and for Talkatone/Google Voice (where it's integrated).
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose to disregard, but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has anything in their contacts that they don't own, is being exceptionally rude to friends & family.
Given most people are incredibly rude when it comes to contacts privacy,
I looked up more about how Signal can*save* contacts, which is handy.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Which we have told you a million times that it is false. It is also
false that it is a fact, it is only your opinion.
Hi Carlos,
Only a fool disputes facts. That's why they're fools after all.
Don't be a fool. You are completely ignorant of what really happens.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Given most people are incredibly rude when it comes to contacts privacy, >>> I looked up more about how Signal can*save* contacts, which is handy.
No, we are not. We debunked your idea many times.
Carlos,
I do not know how to respond to you when you act like a mindless troll who repeatedly claims he's "debunked" the facts, when you simply have not.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Not reading any further. You lost the argument.
Carlos,
Stop trolling this newsgroup.
Just stop it.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Only a fool disputes facts. That's why they're fools after all.
Don't be a fool. You are completely ignorant of what really happens.
There you go. If someone contradicts you, we are fools.
Not reading any further. You lost the argument.
Carlos,
Stop trolling this newsgroup.
Just stop it.
Hi Nuno,
I don't use Signal, so I had to look this up for you on contacts.
<https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/9932632052378-How-to-protect-yourself-on-Signal>
Given most people are incredibly rude when it comes to contacts privacy,
I looked up more about how Signal can *save* contacts, which is handy.
1. You can keep your regular dialer for voice calls separate from Signal
2. Just open Signal, tap the pencil/compose icon & type a number directly
That's it.
Or save your Signal-using contacts in Signal's "Signal contacts" list.
It's apparently a separate, Signal-only address book that never touches
your system contacts.
In addition, apparently there are 3rd-party keypad dialers that Signal can use on Android so that we don't have to expose our contacts, given the salt is the same for all contacts in all such VOIP apps, including WhatsApp.
<https://github.com/topics/signal-cli>
It's also a fact, that (up until now), read contacts meant all contacts.
But that's changing, so I'm using this opportunity to provide new facts.
*Contact Picker: Privacy-First Contact Sharing*
<https://developer.android.com/blog/posts/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact-sharing>
"Historically, applications requiring access to a specific user's
contacts relied on the broad READ_CONTACTS permission.
While functional, this approach often granted apps more data than
necessary. The new Android Contact Picker, introduced in Android 17,
changes this dynamic by providing a standardized, secure,
and searchable interface for contact selection."
I hadn't noticed Android 17's new contact sharing ...
<https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact.html>
allows selective sharing of contacts, rather than all contacts,
allows time-limited access to contacts
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
[...]
What you're using is sending the same post several times?
Nuno Silva wrote:
At this point I feel that
1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has
responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and
2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already
designating this "trolling".
Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment
of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so
quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long,
though... ideally I'd just go with the
"read [...] for one to two months before you post anything"
prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to
involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive
threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer.
Hi Nuno,
Carlos is trolling.
The facts prove it.
Nuno Silva wrote:
In addition, apparently there are 3rd-party keypad dialers that Signal can >>> use on Android so that we don't have to expose our contacts, given the salt >>> is the same for all contacts in all such VOIP apps, including WhatsApp.
<https://github.com/topics/signal-cli>
It indeed seems to be able to keep its own contact list. Sadly, the
interface is a bit too much of a not-so-great commercial product, with
something half the way towards being a dark pattern, or even fully one:
it doesn't talk about merging or using system contacts, it talks about
"[finding] people you know on Signal". And doesn't seem to go away even
when refused.
So far so good, but I think the settings aren't very extensive, so I
look forward to learning what behaviours do I have to put up with... :-P
Hi Nuno,
I keep my own contacts list inside of OpenContacts, which is the only way
we can keep contacts privately (we can discuss that in gory detail later).
There is no way to keep contacts private if they're in the default Android sqlite contacts database, because nobody knows who is reading them & what they're doing with them (as I already cited elsewhere in this thread).
I happen to know contacts rather well.
I've studied them for years.
People who wish to disagree with that assessment are welcome to do so, but they'll need to provide a level of detail concomitant or greater than mine.
So, my point of those paragraphs above is that it's impossible to maintain contact privacy if contacts are maintained in the default sqlite database.
The corollary to that assessment is that any app that claims to keep your contacts private must store them in a separate private database on Android.
Signal does this.
However... there's more to a VOIP app than simply how it stores contacts.
I think Signal is a good product, but I tried to get my own family to use
it, and they wouldn't use it because (a) they didn't need it, but more importantly, (b) it's complicated for them to set up (compared to VOIP).
They'll set up WhatsApp.
But not Signal.
That's the hurdle, as I see it, as Signal seems to be a great app, in and
of itself, but the problem is we have to get everyone we know to use it.
Others may disagree but that's my assessment from my own personal attempts.
Nuno Silva wrote:
At this point I feel that
1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has
responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and
2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already
designating this "trolling".
Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment
of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so
quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long,
though... ideally I'd just go with the
"read [...] for one to two months before you post anything"
prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to
involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive
threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer.
Hi Nuno,
Carlos is trolling.
The facts prove it.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Shall we ask the group again who is trolling?
Hi Carlos,
Stop it with your childish trolling, Carlos.
Just stop it.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
People who wish to disagree with that assessment are welcome to do so, but >>> they'll need to provide a level of detail concomitant or greater than mine. >>We discussed this in big detail in the past, and the consensus was that
no, people using Google Contacts are not a danger to your privacy,
specially those of us living in Europe with out privacy laws.
WTF?
Who said anything specific about "Google Contacts" in this thread?
Nuno Silva wrote:
What you're using is sending the same post several times?
Hi Nuno,
Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing.
Look at the thread.
a. Who provided the facts
b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts
c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again
Who? Nuno.
Answer that question please.
Please do not post further until you answer that question.
Thanks!
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Shall we ask the group again who is trolling?
Stop it with your childish trolling, Carlos.
Just stop it.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Like we write something
Stop trolling this newsgroup, Carlos.
Stop it.
Nuno Silva wrote:
What you're using is sending the same post several times?
Hi Nuno,
Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing.
Look at the thread.
a. Who provided the facts
b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts
c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again
Who? Nuno.
Answer that question please.
Please do not post further until you answer that question.
Thanks!
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
Your only intent, clearly, is to endlessly troll this newsgroup, Carlos.
Stop it.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
There you go.
Instead of your incessant trolling,
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Nuno Silva wrote:
What you're using is sending the same post several times?
Hi Nuno,
Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you >> didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing.
Look at the thread.
a. Who provided the facts
b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts
c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again
Who? Nuno.
Answer that question please.
Please do not post further until you answer that question.
Thanks!
Please use another client or e.g. newsgrouper to look at the thread,
there were at least three identical or very similar posts with the
content of the one I replied to.
I meant what I asked. It looks like something in your posting workflow
is occasionally sending a reply more than once.
Mistakes can happen when coding, or when gluing parts together, and I'm assuming that's all that it was...
Carlos E.R. wrote:
LOL.
Instead of you constantly trolling this newsgroup, Carlos, why not provide even a single fact that backs up your denials of the docs Andy & I posted.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You started.
What I "started" was I posted court cases and Android documents.
Andy posted cites to similar Android documents.
Instead of your constant trolling, why not provide even a single fact that backs up your denials of the docs that both Andy & I kindly posted.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You do not accept criticism
Instead of your constant trolling, why not provide even a single fact that backs up your denials of the docs that both Andy & I have kindly posted.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Not reading further.
If that means you'll stop trolling this newsgroup, that's a good thing that you decided that you had no response to the facts Andy and I both posted.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters.
Stop this bullshit Carlos.
You know almost every post from me is about privacy.
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters.
Stop this bullshit Carlos.
You know almost every post from me is about privacy.
It's been a long day for me, and right now it'd be very difficult to
resist the urge of posting my initial response to the several dozens of
posts stemming out of this exchange exclusively using the characters
whose ASCII and UCS codepoints are between 0x41 and 0x5A.
So I'll leave that for tomorrow.
On 2026-09-02 17:10, Maria Sophia wrote:
Nuno Silva wrote:
At this point I feel that
1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has
responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and
2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already
designating this "trolling".
Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment
of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so
quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long,
though... ideally I'd just go with the
"read [...] for one to two months before you post anything"
prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to
involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive
threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer.
Hi Nuno,
Carlos is trolling.
The facts prove it.
Shall we ask the group again who is trolling?
We had a vote here in thread ŽVote: Is Arlen, aka Maria Sophia, a
troll?¯, and those that replied said that yes, you are a troll,
whereas those you call "trolls" are not.
Subject: Vote: Is Arlen, aka Maria Sophia, a troll?
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 22:41:35 +0100
From: Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Message-ID: <mvhh8fFgkgsU6@mid.individual.net>
...
Ignoring the rest.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
Your only intent, clearly, is to endlessly troll this newsgroup, Carlos.
Stop it.
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
They are not facts, they are opinions
I posted cites & excerpts to Android documentation. Those are not opinions. >> You may hate the result of those documents, but they're still facts.
I can't help but feel slightly appalled that somebody who has before
stressed the importance of logic can't understand that something being written doesn't make it a fact, let alone a universally valid one.
Heck, I've had manufacturer service manuals include blatantly incorrect information.
[ /me Stares at Helwett "your Pavilion laptop has two SODIMM slots" Packard. ]
I will make a moral statement though, which people can choose todisregard,
but it's based on facts, which is anyone who has anything in theircontacts
that they don't own, is being exceptionally rude to friends & family.
You have to troll, to actually be accused of trolling.
That's logic, right?
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497099:23:25 |
| Calls: | 182 |
| Files: | 744 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (5,132K bytes) |
| Messages: | 73,551 |