this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
274 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59251 readers
2597 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Android developer just published an updated landing page for Google Messages, showing off key features ranging from customization, privacy and security, and, of course, AI.

On this landing page, there are different sections for each feature set, including one for RCS. As spotted by 9to5Google, if you expand this list of RCS features and scroll to the bottom, you see a section on "Coming soon on iOS: Better messaging for all." That's no surprise: We've known Apple was adopting RCS since November. However, it's the next line that brings the news: "Apple has announced it will be adopting RCS in the fall of 2024."

Of course, this does not say a lot as it is "in the fall" which is anywhere over a couple of months, and Google has tried to embarrass Apple into making moves before. I suppose, though, there is the looming court case against Apple which is anyway keeping pressure on Apple. If it were not for the US court case, I would have guessed Apple may have pulled out after the EU had ruled Apple was not a dominant player in the market (although the EU case was looking more at interoperability with WhatsApp and others in Apple Messages).

Of course, with Apple actually including RCS now, they can probably argue that there is interoperability via RCS between their platform and Android too. It must be remembered that in many countries, like mine, SMS's are paid for so are very expensive to use for any form of chatting, and the costs go up exponentially when you text an international number.

I personally have quite a few issues with interoperability with Apple:

  • I still have AirTags from when I had an iPhone and I daily get the audio beeps warning me the AirTags are not connected (I use an Android phone and alternate between an iPad and an Android tablet)
  • I can't wait to sell my AirTags and get the new one's Google was working on that will interoperate with Apple, but supposedly Apple has been delaying building in that support into their devices (which Google already built into Android for AirTags in 2023)
  • Because I was on Apple Messages and my iPad still sometimes connects, I find a message on my iPad that arrived a week ago which I had not seen (I had Beeper which was solving this problem)

Apple is not at all dominant outside the USA, but it makes interacting with Apple users quite a pain, as Apple has gone out of their way to try to keep their users inside the walled garden.

See https://lifehacker.com/tech/google-just-revealed-when-apple-will-officially-adopt-rcs

#technology #RCS #Apple #interoperability

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why would you be OK with that? You do know hashes can be brute forced to determine the original message, right? Truncating a hash doesn't really change anything. It just increased a chance of a hash collision.

In additon, they trivial to figure out very common messages. They can use that to figure out your relationship between people. If you, for instance, reply to a question with just "weed". Or if you asked "DTF?" Or any other short message. They know what you said. For somewhat longer messages, they could brute force the contents. Very few intelligible English sentences would hash to the same value, even when truncated.

It's spyware and we should not be OK with that.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why would you be OK with that?

You are thinking about this hash part way too much. Why would they bother brute forcing the hash when the message goes through their system anyway? If they wanted to know what you said, they could just read and store the message directly.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, but they can't do that in bulk and have people be OK with it. When it's hashed, they can say, "we can't read these" and have it be half true.