Lemmings, what are your opinions on the following?:

Mar 26, 2026 9:32 AM

Using a VPN May Subject You to NSA Spying

US lawmakers are pressing Tulsi Gabbard to reveal whether using a VPN can strip Americans of their constitutional protections against warrantless surveillance

Six Democratic lawmakers are pressing the nation's top intelligence official to publicly disclose whether Americans who use commercial VPN services risk being treated as foreigners under United States surveillance law—a classification that would strip them of constitutional protections against warrantless government spying.

In a letter sent Thursday to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmakers say that because VPNs obscure a user's true location, and because intelligence agencies presume that communications of unknown origin are foreign, Americans may be inadvertently waiving the privacy protections they're entitled to under the law.

Several federal agencies, including the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission, have recommended that consumers use VPNs to protect their privacy. But following that advice may inadvertently cost Americans the very protections they're seeking.

The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.

The concern centers on how intelligence agencies treat internet traffic routed through commercial VPN servers, which may be located anywhere in the world. Millions of Americans use these services routinely, whether to access region-restricted content like overseas sports broadcasts or to protect their privacy on public Wi-Fi networks. Because VPN servers commingle traffic from users in many countries, a single server—even one located in the United States—may carry communications from foreigners, potentially making it a target for surveillance under authorities that allow the government to secretly compel service from US service providers.

Under a controversial warrantless surveillance program, the US government intercepts vast quantities of electronic communications belonging to people overseas. The program also sweeps in enormous volumes of private messages belonging to Americans, which the FBI may search without a warrant, even though it is authorized to target only foreigners abroad.

The program, authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is set to expire next month and has become the subject of a fierce battle in Congress over whether it should be renewed without significant reforms to protect Americans' privacy.

Thursday’s letter points to declassified intelligence community guidelines that establish a default presumption at the heart of the lawmakers' concern: Under the NSA's targeting procedures, a person whose location is unknown is presumed to be a non-US person unless there is specific information to the contrary. Department of Defense procedures governing signals intelligence activities contain the same presumption.

Commercial VPN services work by routing a user's internet traffic through servers operated by the VPN company, which may be located anywhere in the world. A single server may carry traffic from thousands of users simultaneously, all of it appearing to originate from the same IP address. To an intelligence agency collecting communications in bulk, an American connected to a VPN server in, say, Amsterdam looks no different from a Dutch citizen.

The letter does not assert that Americans' VPN traffic has been collected under these authorities—that information would be classified—but asks Gabbard to publicly clarify what impact, if any, VPN use has on Americans' privacy rights.

Among those pressing the question is Wyden, who as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has access to classified details about how these surveillance programs operate and has a well-documented history of using carefully worded public statements to draw attention to surveillance practices he is unable to discuss openly.

The letter also raises concerns about a second, broader surveillance authority: Executive Order 12333, a Reagan-era directive that governs much of the intelligence community's foreign surveillance operations and permits the bulk collection of foreigners' communications with even fewer constraints than Section 702.

While 702 is a statute with congressional oversight that requires approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, EO 12333 surveillance operates under guidelines approved by the US attorney general alone.

The letter warns that the same foreignness presumption applies under both authorities, meaning Americans on foreign VPN servers could be exposed not just to targeted collection under 702 but to what the lawmakers describe as “bulk, indiscriminate surveillance of foreigners' communications.”

Americans spend billions of dollars each year on commercial VPN services, many offered by foreign-headquartered companies that route traffic through servers located overseas. The letter notes that these services are widely advertised as privacy tools, including by elements of the US government itself.

Despite the scale of the market, the letter suggests consumers have been given no meaningful guidance on how to protect themselves.

The lawmakers urge Gabbard to “clarify what, if anything, American consumers can do to ensure they receive the privacy protections they are entitled to under the law and the US Constitution.”

Updated at 12:38 pm ET, March 26, 2026: This story has been updated with additional details to clarify the scope of the potential surveillance addressed in the letter.

Ola

A few months ago I posted here about llama-conductor

The upvotes were nice, but I wanted to do some work (in my case, the good is the enemy of the perfect) to make it even better - so I did.

Short version: it's not the same tool anymore.

Quick reminder of what this is and isn't: No cloud by default. No API calls. No telemetry. No subscription. PII safe by architecture. Everything leaves receipts (not pinky promises) for you to inspect. Hook it up to whatever you can run. AGPL (copyleft).

I want nothing for it - I built this for me for the reasons I'll state below.

If this sort of thing is in your wheelhouse, have at it. If there are questions, ask. I want to make this better and better.

Fair warning: the below is long. I wrote it up properly because I think the details matter - skip to whatever section looks interesting. Or just marvel at my ability to cram swear words within swear words within python commits directly

Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor

---

Can a LLM be a thinking tool, not a thinking replacement?

Most LLM tools are trying to replace your thinking. llama-conductor is for people who don't want that. It's a harness for using an LLM as a thinking tool - one where you can see the reasoning, trust the sources, and know exactly when it's guessing.

The human stays in the loop. The model's limitations are visible.

You decide what to trust.

Which brings us to why that matters.

---

Lies, damned lies, and LLMs:

LLMs are elegant liars. They sound right whether they are or aren't. If you have ASD (like me) or just don't know the domain, you believe them. That's when you get fucked.

Worse: you can't see the reasoning. Black box in, black box out. Wrong answer? No idea why. How to fix it? No idea.

Sorry, but that DOES NOT work for me. It doesn't work with medical data. Research. Thinking. Brainstorming. Anything where "sounds plausible" isn't good enough.

---

The trick, William Potter, is not minding that they bullshit:

Most pipelines treat the LLM as the first call. llama-conductor side-eyes it with suspicion.

The model is the last resort, not the first call. Deterministic components fire first - math sanity, state transitions, numeric corrections, memory retrieval - pure Python, before the model ever sees the query. When a solver handles a turn, it passes verified ground truth to the model. When the conversation leaves solver territory, the model takes over. When a new deterministic state appears mid-conversation, tooling fires back up automatically. No seams. No drift. It just stops making shit up on problems that have actual solutions it can work through.

You: 
I have a 250ml cup. I pour 500ml into it. How much is in the cup?

Model:
Total directed volume is 500 ml. The cup capacity is 250 ml, so the cup contains 250 ml and 250 ml overflows.
Confidence: medium | Source: Contextual

You:
I now take the contents of *that* cup and divide it equally across 3 cups. How much in each cup?

Model:
Equal split amount is 83.33 ml per cup.
Confidence: medium | Source: Contextual


You:
If I drink one of the three cups, how much is left?

Model:
After dividing, each cup holds 83.33 ml. Drinking one leaves 2 × 83.33 ml = 166.66 ml in the remaining two cups.

Confidence: medium | Source: Model

That was done by a 4 billion parameter model using llama-conductor.

There are lots of little transformations like this. Distance, volume, payroll calculations, logic probes (the famous car wash test), scheduling batches. The LLM does what it's actually good at: language, synthesis, reasoning over verified ground truth. Everything else is handled by something that can't hallucinate.

PS: Notice turn 3 has Source: Model? That's the system being transparent about exactly where the handoff happened.

---

Blah blah blah. Show me something real:

Using the Guardian/Musk article as source, a 4B model with >>scratch produced this:

"List the article's concrete claims about permit status and turbine operations, each with support."

• EPA position: these turbines require permits under the Clean Air Act.
• Mississippi regulators: portable/mobile classification means temporary permit exemption.
• Floodlight thermal imagery + public records indicate active turbine usage before/while permit disputes continued.

Confidence: high | Source: Scratchpad

"What is the strongest and weakest inference you can make?"

Strongest: Active regulatory interpretation conflict (federal-vs-state) while turbines operate at scale - directly supported. Weakest: Any claim operations are fully lawful or unlawful - requires court outcomes not present in this file.

Confidence: medium | Source: Scratchpad

"Which claims were later revised or contradicted?"

Disputed/unresolved: Final enforcement outcome. Whether state interpretation holds under federal pressure.

Confidence: high | Source: Scratchpad

Hard grounding. Cited support. Explicit flags on what the source doesn't contain. A 4B model. Full worked example.

---

Now watch the system catch itself lying:

>>judge does deterministic pairwise ranking - compares every pair in both directions, parses strict verdicts, aggregates with confidence. Instead of "pick one and vibe," you get provenance.

You: >>judge [which is healthier overall, prioritize lower sugar 
     and higher fiber] : apple, banana --verbose

[judge] ranking
criterion: [which is healthier overall for daily use, prioritize 
           lower sugar and higher fiber]
1. apple (score=2.00)
2. banana (score=0.00)
Judge confidence: HIGH

The model argued from pre-trained priors and both directions agreed. But what happens when the model doesn't know?

You: >>judge [which BJJ technique is more dangerous] : kimura, heelhook --verbose

[judge] ranking
criterion: [which BJJ technique is more dangerous]
1. kimura (score=1.00)
2. heelhook (score=1.00)
Judge confidence: LOW

The model picked position B both times - kimura when kimura was B, heelhook when heelhook was B. Positional bias, not evaluation. >>judge catches this because it runs both orderings. Tied scores, confidence: low, full reasoning audit trail in JSONL.

The model was guessing, and the output tells you so instead of sounding confident about a coin flip.

Oh, but you want it to argue from an informed position? >>trust walks you through the grounded path: >>scratch your evidence first, then >>judge ranks from that - not model priors. Suddenly your judge has an informed opinion. Weird how that works when you give it something to read.

>>trust [which BJJ technique is safer for beginners]: kimura or heelhook?
A) >>scratch --> you paste your context here
[judge] ranking
criterion: [comparison]
    which bjj technique is safer for beginners; heel hook (score=0.00)
    kimura (score=2.00)

Winner: Which bjj technique is safer for beginners? Kimura

comparisons: 2
Judge confidence: HIGH

If the locked scope can't support the question, judge fails closed. No fake ranking, no vibes verdict. Ungrounded pass? It tells you that too. You always know which one you're getting.

---

The data — 8,974 runs across five model families. Measured. Reproducible. No "trust me bro."

The core stack went through iterative hardening - rubric flags dropped from 3.3% → 1.4% → 0.2% → floor 0.00%. Post-policy: 1,864 routed runs, 0 flags, 0 retries. Both models, all six task categories, both conditions. Policy changes only - no model retraining, no fine-tuning. Then I did it three more times. Because apparently I like pain.

These aren't softball prompts. I created six question types specifically to break shit:

• Reversal: flip the key premise after the model commits. Does it revise, or cling?
• Theory of mind: multiple actors, different beliefs. Does it keep who-knows-what straight?
• Evidence grading: mixed-strength support. Does it maintain label discipline or quietly upgrade?
• Retraction: correction invalidates an earlier assumption. Does it update or keep reasoning from the dead premise?
• Contradiction: conflicting sources. Does it detect, prioritise, flag uncertainty - or just pick one?
• Negative control: insufficient evidence by design. The only correct answer is "I don't know."

Then I stress-tested across three families it was never tuned for - Granite 3B, Phi-4-mini, SmolLM3. They broke. Of course.

But the failures weren't random - they clustered in specific lanes under specific conditions, and the dominant failure mode was contract-compliance gaps (model gave the right answer in the wrong format), not confabulation. Every one classifiable and diagnosable. Surgical lane patch → 160/160 clean.

That's the point of this thing. Not "zero errors forever" - auditable error modes with actionable fixes, correctable at the routing layer without touching the model. Tradeoffs documented honestly. Raw data in repo. Every failure taxonomized.

Trust me bro? Fuck that - go reproduce it. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and working on submitting this for peer review.

See: prepub/PAPER.md

---

What's in the box:

Footer Every answer gets a router-assigned footer: Confidence: X | Source: Y. Not model self-confidence. Not vibes. Source = where the answer came from (model fallback, grounded docs, scratchpad, locked file, Vault, Wiki, cheatsheet, OCR). Confidence = how much verifiable support exists. Fast trust decision: accept, verify, or provide lockable context.

KAIOKEN - live register classifier. Every human turn is macro-labelled (working / casual / personal) with subsignal tags (playful / friction / distress_hint / etc.) before the model fires. A validated, global decision tree - not LoRA or vibes - assigns tone constraints from classifier output. Validated against 1,536 adversarial probe executions, 3/3 pass required per probe. End result: your model stops being a sycophant. It might tell you to go to bed. It won't tell you "you're absolutely right!" when what you really need is a kick in the arse.

Cheatsheets - drop a JSONL file, terms auto-match on every turn, verified facts injected before generation. Miss on an unknown term? Routes to >>wiki instead of letting the model guess. Source: Cheatsheets in the footer. Your knowledge, your stack, zero confabulation on your own specs.

Vodka - deterministic memory pipeline. !! store is SHA-addressed and verbatim. ?? recall retrieves deterministically, bypasses model entirely. What you said is what comes back - no LLM smoothing, no creative reinterpretation. Without this? Your model confidently tells you your server IP is 127.0.0.1. Ask me how I know.

>>flush / !!nuke - flush context or nuke it from orbit. Your data, your call, one command. "Delete my data" is a keystroke, not a support ticket.

>>scratch - paste any text, ask questions grounded only to that text. Lossless, no summarisation. Model cannot drift outside it. Want it to use multiple locked sources? You can.

>>summ and >>lock - deterministic extractive summarisation (pure Python, no LLM) + single-source grounding. Missing support → explicit "not found" label, not silent fallback.

##mentats - Vault-only deep retrieval. Thinker drafts from Vault facts, Critic (different model family) hunts violations, hallucinated content is deleted - never replaced with more hallucination, Thinker consolidates. No evidence to support claim? No answer. Gap explicitly stated.

Deterministic sidecars - >>wiki, >>weather, >>exchange, >>calc, >>define, >>vision/>>ocr. If a sidecar can do it, it does it deterministically.

Role orchestration - thinker, critic, vision, coder, judge - different families for error diversity. Swap any role in one line of config.

Personality Modes - Serious (default), Fun, Fun Rewrite, Raw passthrough. Model updates its snark and sarcasm based on how you talk to it. Yes, TARS sliders. Style changes delivery, not evidence contracts.

---

So, wait...are you saying you solved LLM hallucinations?

No. I did something much more evil. I made it impossible for the LLM to bullshit quietly. I made hallucinations...unpalatable, so the model would rather say "shit, I don't know the answer. Please stop hurting me."

To which I say...no.

Wrong still happens (though much less often), and when it does, it comes with a source label, a confidence rating, and an audit trail.

TL;DR: I made "I don't know" a first-class output.

"In God We Trust; All others bring data." - Deming

---

Runs on:

A potato. I run this on my Lenovo P330 Tiny with 4GB VRAM and 640 CUDA cores; if it runs here, it runs on yours.

pip install git+https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor.git
python -m llama_conductor.launch_stack up --config llama_conductor/router_config.yaml

Open http://127.0.0.1:8088/

Full docs: FAQ | Quickstart

License: AGPL-3.0. Corps who use it, contribute back.

P.S.: The whole stack runs on llama.cpp alone. I built a shim that patches the llama.cpp WebUI to route API calls through llama-conductor - one backend, one frontend, zero extra moving parts. Desktop or LAN. That's it.

PPS.: I even made a Firefox extension for it. Gives you 'summarize', 'translate', 'analyse sentiment' and 'copy text to chat'. Doesn't send anything to the cloud AT ALL (it's just HTML files folded into a Firefox XPI).

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Feynman

PPPS: A meat popsicle wrote this. Evidence - https://bobbyllm.github.io/llama-conductor/

---

Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor

GitHub: https://github.com/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor

OK, for context, none of us have Graphene, Lineage, Murena, etc compatible phones. However, at work, we use an MDM that let's me manage Apple and Google devices result. I see they offer a free tier for <25 devices (I would be under that limit for desktops, laptops, and mobiles) and I know they can deploy apps without a Google account. So maybe that's the trick! Deploy my kids phones with someone I can easily track, where they can't disable location, can't install social media apps, and no need for A Google account.

I understand a Google account is needed for the MDM, but I would make up a bogus one, lock down app permissions quite well, etc. Have a kid profile and a grown up profile for when devices are registered. Seems like it'd be a rather simple thing overall that gives way more control than Google family does.

Anyone else run something like this? This would be Endpoint Central. I know they're India based, but to me that's a bonus as it's not US tech either!

Edit: oh yeah and should help to bypass age verification limits too since it'll be "corporate owned"

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45061709

There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.

Every day, dozens of new accounts join our chat rooms to spread the same fabrications about GrapheneOS including via direct messages.

On Hacker News, one of the accounts making personal attacks based on fabrications in most threads about GrapheneOS has been doing it for 8 years.

Y Combinator has a financial stake in numerous surveillance and exploit development companies. Hacker News is a platform they own and the moderators on it have permitted years of vile harassment towards our team which they'd normally remove if others were targeted.

Hacker News mods micromanage it enough to repeatedly ask us not to reuse a bit of text across our comments. Meanwhile, they do nothing about disgusting personal attacks and harassment content consistently being spread in threads about GrapheneOS on their heavily moderated site.

The largest privacy community on Reddit /r/privacy bans any discussion or mentions of GrapheneOS. A bot automatically removes any post mentioning GrapheneOS they'll very actively ban people who evade their filters. The mods of the subreddit misrepresent this as something we want.

Many privacy subreddits have mods who are hostile towards GrapheneOS. We were banned from posting on /r/Android for multiple years. The mod who banned us said our official project account on Reddit was ban evading because they once unjustifiably banned one of our team members.

On Wikipedia, a company attacking GrapheneOS project made years of edits to the site pushing false narratives about us. They cited articles based on their own press releases. Other content was made paraphrasing Wikipedia which ended up being cited by it. It continues to this day.

Articles about GrapheneOS on most platforms often have comments engaging in baseless personal attacks towards our team, linking to harassment content and making many clearly inaccurate claims about it. We've found chat rooms coordinating this including attacks on the X platform.

Privacy projects are more vulnerable to these attacks because the userbase and supporters largely avoid social media and other platforms where it happens. Many people believe what they read on social media if it isn't countered and it builds echo chambers hostile to GrapheneOS.

Many people think these must be state sponsored attacks. However, our experience is these attacks are primarily orchestrated by companies selling dubious products marketed as private and secure. We did get targeted by state sponsored smear campaigns in France and Spain though.

Like the title says. Stated getting this notification every time I open fennec.

The push service application is no longer available. It may have been uninstalled. Please re-inable UnifiedPush.

Is this something I should do or is there a way to turn this off?

Following what I learned over at https://programming.dev/post/47796780 about Brave I decided to switch to IronFox, which is also recommended by LibreWolf.

I wasn't able to find the damn ~/Bookmarks directory.

I tried to create one under /storage/emulated/0/Android/data/org.ironfoxoss.ironfox/files/ and copied my Brave bookmarks.html file into it, but to no avail. I ended up manually copying the bookmarks into IronFox, since I couldn't find any import function.

The documentation and FAQs are top notch, as in relevant and concise.

I love the developers' opennes about the limitations

My hardware security key - a Yubico Yubikey - didn't work "out of the box" as it did with Brave, but lo and behold, IronFox had a solution. I have never used Android's function to manage passkeys before, so I'm unsure of the security and/or privacy implications.

All in all, I can strongly recommend this browser based on my initial impressions! Also:

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44753763

Apple Support page

I haven't seen a better community to put this, so I'm putting it here. I've used graphene os before with a pixel 6, and used it for a few months all up until I got an insulin pump, namely an Omnipod. This thing rarely works with current generation phones, and up until recently didn't work with iPhone at all. I tried Graphene OS on an old phone again (7 pro) and tried to connect to the pump but something about it determined it was not Google Android, so it didn't work. I use x drip to connect to my CGM, and never really used the default dexcom app. I'm aware of AndroidAPS, an offshoot of open APS, but I imagine it'll be a long time, if ever, that it works with current generation pumps. And importing one that would work from Korea or the UK doesn't seem to be an option that I can afford. Am I just screwed when Google walls off Android? Is anyone aware of alternative control software for Omnipod pumps? I'd really like to go back to graphene and keep using the other software I use today, but looks like Google is going to put an end to that.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/62353095

Ngl it’s getting pretty ridiculous how often things like this are being implemented into everything we use.

I have been testing Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser using fingerprint.com. I get unique persistent identifiers that are unique per machine and persist over rebooting sessions. Javascript was on during this test.

This could be very dangerous to people using Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser.

For example, if someone visits Rainbow Railroad, an organization for leaving repressive countries with hostile LGBT policies, and then watches a video about the organization on YouTube, and then also does something, like create a Discord Server, and use Tor Browser to get around geoblocking but link it to their personal phone number, then a hostile regime buying data from data brokers could possible determine that user is considering using rainbow railroad. Even if this exact example isn't realistic or plausible (although governments do buy form data brokers), users should be aware that persistent identifiers in Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser allow for continuous tracking of a user using the same machine.

I posted this information on privacyguides forum and they deleted my account after, leading me to wonder if the forum is a giant honeypot that curates acceptable privacy discussions and unacceptable private discussions. I honestly wonder if they are infiltrated by the government. They repeatedly delete the posts of other people as well and the whole thing is starting to not sit well with me.

Reddit CEO says facial verification may be introduced. Ostensibly to prevent bots.

But we all know how dangerous this can be. But most likely Reddit users will just accept it.

Although they have a great free analogue right under their noses - Lemmy. Which is many times better than its competitor.

I wish more people would discover Lemmy, but that's unlikely.

The right to protest doesn’t mean much if people are afraid to exercise it.

With growing surveillance—facial recognition, phone tracking, social media monitoring—privacy is becoming a key part of protest safety.

Without privacy, dissent becomes risky.

I’ve signed this petition in support.

It has been a long journey.

I have been gradually convincing my family, close relatives and friends to make the switch to Signal for over two years. I am already the "tech support guy" in all my circles so most didn't really question it. Most of my friends are quite tech-savvy, and some even did use Signal before I talked to them about it.

This also filtered out some "friends" who were never that close to me to begin with. So, that's a bonus, I guess.

Overall, my recommendation to others interested would be to tell people how much you don't like Meta's business model instead of the privacy aspect. I already ditched Facebook and Instagram many years ago, and this helped defend my point a bit better.

The platform I can trust ? When none of the current platforms I do trust have any cookies at all ? Or analytics?

I’ll stick with the Fediverse k? Thanks !

Do you have experience with any of these?

https://github.com/DavidHavoc/ToS-Reader-Summarizer

https://github.com/skamal23/ToS-Summarizer

I'm interested in tools that highlight privacy invasive terms and conditions that are often hidden behind legal jargon or wrapped up in so much text that the end user is discouraged to actually read through the terms of service and/or the privacy policy.

If items in a fireproof safe are purposefully set on fire with a fully closed and locked safe, are contents outside of the safe generally safe from fire?

The safe can be placed in a secluded spot and on stone.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44588140

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/49749386

If the video isn't working, try these links:

• https://cdn.videy.co/8f2f25e11.mp4
• https://streamable.com/0xj1ni (slightly better quality but only up for 2 days)

Clipped from full hour long video (around 49 minutes in): https://www.removedute.com/video/jmhFAjqbxnQ

Europol report: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/The-Unmanned-Future-Report.pdf

Hey everyone, I'm considering moving my cell phone number over to being a VoIP number with JMP.chat. Unfortunately, a lot of my family members are not the most privacy focused people in the world (they're the "they already have my data so it doesn't matter" types). Over the past few years, I've been fighting the good fight and managed to get a few of them over to using Signal and some even on Matrix, but for the vast majority of them, they still only text. They almost all use Apple products, so because I still use iPhone (switching to Graphene with my next phone), most of our conversations are via iMessage. My question is which would be more private/secure? Leaving my number as is with the cell carrier and texting via iMessage or switching my number to JMP and texting via SMS?