4 ms·

Well for me, I prefer the way telegram has decided to handle end to end encryption. Let's face it - me and my friends have no use for it, and never will. Our th

Well for me, I prefer the way telegram has decided to handle end to end encryption. Let's face it - me and my friends have no use for it, and never will. Our threat model just doesn't really care about actors like the NSA hacking us. If they wanted there's tons of other ways to get our information any (like Google or Facebook accounts). But not being encrypted gives us features not possible otherwise, like url prefetching from the server or (when telegram was released, I guess it can be done now) accessing the chat from as many devices as you want. Yes, there is a tradeoff, but really I don't think most users are worried, nor should they be.

andrepd 9y ago
Speak for yourself. I care about privacy, and I couldn't give a shit about something so minor as link prefetching. I suspect I'm far from alone.
- bollockitis 9y ago
  Anon1096 clearly stated that he was speaking for himself (or herself) but I agree with him: I want privacy but I don't necessarily need complete secrecy. This isn't a zero sum game: Telegram and Signal can coexist and serve different needs.
  - acct1771 9y ago
    "I really don't think most users are worried" is the stark OPPOSITE of speaking for yourself.
- throwaway-hn123 9y ago
  he literally was speaking for himself, you ignorant, rude cunt.
- lloeki 9y ago
  While I do find such features convenient, more importantly to me they draw people to a more secure and privacy conscious messaging platform than the ultra-popular alternatives all the while allowing to upgrade to E2E† on demand. Signal completely fails in that regard, as the number of contacts (actual or potential) on it is precisely zero for me.
- jamesb93 9y ago
  And you're very welcome to use something that fits your threat model.
calgoo 9y ago
I really don't understand the "hate" for Telegram on HN. I understand that its not (allegedly) as secure as signal for example, but like you said, state actors etc have other ways of getting that info (see xkcd [1]). I personally use Telegram when talking to my wife because it lets me have a client on every platform i use and the messages follow me. I could do that with some of the other platforms as well, but im already on this platform, the wife is on the platform, and some other family members as well. Now would it be better if it was "more" secure? Of course it could, I mean, we could all be communicating with PGP as well, but most people don't because its a pain to use. So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. As a added bonus, using the bot framework that Telegram offers, i have started creating a home automation bot. The framework is really fun and easy to use. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. Same. I tried Signal a couple of years ago but the iOS app was prone to crashing, corrupting messages, and just plain losing words. Not really what you want. > The framework is really fun and easy to use. Yeah, I've done a couple of bots for it and it's pretty handy.
- Aloha 9y ago
  Telegram for me is the right trade off between security and convenience.

andrepd 9y ago

Speak for yourself. I care about privacy, and I couldn't give a shit about something so minor as link prefetching. I suspect I'm far from alone.

bollockitis 9y ago
Anon1096 clearly stated that he was speaking for himself (or herself) but I agree with him: I want privacy but I don't necessarily need complete secrecy. This isn't a zero sum game: Telegram and Signal can coexist and serve different needs.
- acct1771 9y ago
  "I really don't think most users are worried" is the stark OPPOSITE of speaking for yourself.
throwaway-hn123 9y ago
he literally was speaking for himself, you ignorant, rude cunt.
lloeki 9y ago
While I do find such features convenient, more importantly to me they draw people to a more secure and privacy conscious messaging platform than the ultra-popular alternatives all the while allowing to upgrade to E2E† on demand. Signal completely fails in that regard, as the number of contacts (actual or potential) on it is precisely zero for me.
jamesb93 9y ago
And you're very welcome to use something that fits your threat model.

calgoo 9y ago

I really don't understand the "hate" for Telegram on HN. I understand that its not (allegedly) as secure as signal for example, but like you said, state actors etc have other ways of getting that info (see xkcd [1]). I personally use Telegram when talking to my wife because it lets me have a client on every platform i use and the messages follow me. I could do that with some of the other platforms as well, but im already on this platform, the wife is on the platform, and some other family members as well. Now would it be better if it was "more" secure? Of course it could, I mean, we could all be communicating with PGP as well, but most people don't because its a pain to use. So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. As a added bonus, using the bot framework that Telegram offers, i have started creating a home automation bot. The framework is really fun and easy to use. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

zimpenfish 9y ago
> So to me personally, Telegram is a useful middle ground between great security and usability. Same. I tried Signal a couple of years ago but the iOS app was prone to crashing, corrupting messages, and just plain losing words. Not really what you want. > The framework is really fun and easy to use. Yeah, I've done a couple of bots for it and it's pretty handy.
Aloha 9y ago
Telegram for me is the right trade off between security and convenience.