7 ms·
Well, if Telegram had end-to-end encryption enabled by default, this wouldn't even be technically possible.
by yoavm 9y ago
Well, if Telegram had end-to-end encryption enabled by default, this wouldn't even be technically possible.
- tandav 9y agothey haven't
- golergka 9y agoIt also would have had much worse usability in the most common case: when government agencies aren't a real risk factor, but you want conversations synced between different apps. Seriously, disregarding trade-off between security and usability is exactly how we ended up with very secure, 20-digit passwords, containing every possible unicode symbol, updated every Monday, written on post-it notes hanging on the wall.
- SirensOfTitan 9y agoKeybase handles the multi-device issue really, really well. I don't feel convinced at all that multi-device e2e encrypted messaging cannot be usable.
- leetbulb 9y agoWire is awesome. Keybase is like Wire, but for teams...it's amazing. Encrypted file system for personal, public, and individual teams, chat, git repos...oh boy!
- avhon1 9y agoXMPP + MAM (XEP-0313) + OMEMO (XEP-0384) provides end-to-end encryption and device synchronization.
- bitL 9y agoHow would this help if OS manufacturer or even baseband operator could read anything in your phone's memory remotely, including encryption keys?
- na85 9y agoThat's moving the goalposts. Pick a threat model and stick to it.
- avhon1 9y agoI agree with /u/na85. If you're worried about law enforcement or corporations sniffing keys out of your devices RAM, you have other things to worry about besides "what app should I use for communication"? If you're seriously worried about communicating without trusting your phone, then you either need to find communication devices you do trust, or else look into verifiable TRNGs [0], dumb serial printers that can be directly attached to RNGs [1], and either manual encryption/decryption algorithms [2] or one-time pads. [0]: https://archive.is/CGQkR https://archive.is/CGQkR [1]: http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2146 http://www.loper-os.org/?p=2146 [2]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/339.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/339.pdf
- bitL 9y agoI simply want real privacy, not an illusion of one. It's pointless to use any half-baked privacy approach when your device is compromised by design; who knows if the current mainstream becomes dissent in 20 years and people will be hanged because of their old communication logs? Thanks but no thanks.
- krick 9y agoPlease elaborate. I heard this "usability and chat history" stuff many times already, but I never understood it: it honestly sounds just like marketing bullshit. WhatsApp uses e2e and is quite usable as long as I'm concerned. If only group chats with more than 10 people (hell, I'm ok with 3, even 2, if that's necessary) would be non-encrypted by default — I would be fine with that.
- jakebasile 9y agoWhatsApp requires your phone (and it must be a phone) to be on and connected to WiFi, using battery, to use their desktop "app". This is terrible usability. WhatsApp doesn't have a native (or near native Qt app as Telegram does) on anything but phones. No tablets, no desktop OS. This is bad usability. If I sign in to a new device on Telegram (and it can be nearly any device), I can instantly have my entire message history available. This is what they mean by chat history. I no longer actively use Telegram, but only because no one else I know could be convinced to use it over Messenger. Messenger solves some of these problems but not all.
- morsch 9y agoWhatsApp requires your phone (and it must be a phone) to be on and connected to WiFi, using battery, to use their desktop "app". This is terrible usability. I can understand it'd be very annoying when you're affected -- eg having to work in an area with ethernet, but without wifi/3G, or when you need a fallback when the phone is out of battery. For the most part, it's a non-issue for me. Signal uses the same basic protocol and doesn't require the phone to be online all the time. Chances are the WhatsApp implementation chose a trade off that minimized confusion for less sophisticated users (within the constraints of maintaining confidentiality). That tends to be a good idea when you've got a billion users. If I sign in to a new device on Telegram ..., I can instantly have my entire message history available Including "secret chats"?
- jakebasile 9y ago> That tends to be a good idea when you've got a billion users. Telegram has a lot of users as well. It's a design choice for sure, but I disagree with it and it doesn't work for me personally. Their lack of support for anything but phones is my primary concern though - I could maybe stomach the requirement for my primary device to be online, but simply not making at least an iPad and preferably a macOS app is a no go for me. > Including "secret chats"? No, Telegram secret chats are device to device and can't be backed up or transferred. This is also why I rarely used them.
- DCKing 9y agoUgh, this keeps on coming up. Wire [1] already has both end-to-end encryption and cross device sync. It's not the only one to do that either. It's not a tradeoff. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)
- trisimix 9y agoIt also has a better user experience. And encryption enabled by default.
- melkhior 9y ago+1 for Wire from me, have been using it for about a year and a half now. I only wish it had a better desktop client, the current one is a little laggy especially when scrolling up chat history.
- petre 9y agoI use the web client and it works fibe. I suspect the desktop clients are Electron based.
- Mithaldu 9y agoThe last time i tried Wire its UX was about as stable as what a 12 year old would cobble together with old ducktape and string. Constantly exhibiting glitches and bugs and lacking even the most basic UI amenities as well as being a heavyweight browser app. Does Wire have a light-weight and solid desktop client yet?
- krageon 9y agoWire drains the battery of your phone so hard it's unusable in practice. There has been a bug report about this open since May 2017, with a note that "we're working on it". It hasn't been solved so far.
- avodonosov 9y agoEnd-to-end is supported https://telegram.org/faq#secret-chats https://telegram.org/faq#secret-chats