6 ms·

They have end to end encryption available but off by default because it affects searching (they can't index your chat if they don't know what you said). Since

They have end to end encryption available but off by default because it affects searching (they can't index your chat if they don't know what you said). Since your average users would be fine with this, it seems fair to have it as an optional feature.

vinay427 7y ago
Signal (the messenger) and Tutanota (for emails) both have search on their mobile clients with end-to-end encryption. It's definitely feasible to implement client-side search.
- izacus 7y ago
  Signal will also lose all your messaging history and kick you out of all your group conversations if your phone breaks or you lose it. It also has no usable automated backup solution or sync. It's also completely unable to work on multiple devices. Not really comparable in usability.
  - interfixus 7y ago
    Also, it will snark on you to all contacts whenever you move to a new device. And plead with you to let it handle your ordinary sms texting, then hold your text messages hostage, not exportable back to any other app.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      It doesn't plead. It asks one time. At least on Android. I said no and it has never asked me again.
      - interfixus 7y ago
        It asked me a number of times. And it never warned that this was a oneway process.
        interfixus 7y ago
        Idle curiosity: The above is a report of fact as observed by me. It's not really up for discussion - this is what happened. Could someone for our edification explain a bit about the reasoning behing their downvotes? Other than my having sinned in the church of moxie and his true disciple tptacek.
    - bigwavedave 7y ago
      Do you mean "nark"? "Snark" is when you use humor to pick at someone or something. "Narking" is being a tattle-tale.
      - interfixus 7y ago
        Yes, that was a late-night typo. Interested, although not surprised, to see my factually indisputable comment getting massively downvoted.
        bigwavedave 7y ago
        I've never understood the culture with that on HN. I probably never will.
  - prophesi 7y ago
    I don't think OP was recommending Signal / Tutanota as alternative apps to use, just showing that you can have your cake (E2E encryption) and eat it too (client-side search).
  - checktheorder 7y ago
    >Signal will also lose all your messaging history and kick you out of all your group conversations if your phone breaks or you lose it. It also has no usable automated backup solution or sync. Depending on one's threat model, this could be considered a feature.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      If your point is that only people with a Mossad threat model should use Signal, I wholeheartedly agree.
      - checktheorder 7y ago
        Oh, please. If Mossad really wants my messages, they're not going to give up at the "Oh no, he uses Signal!" step. They're going to go full knee-wrench if they have to. And considering they have a habit of forging my country's passports, don't pretend that me living in another country is a barrier to that. The same goes for my country's government. Our laws are chock-full of "throw him in jail until he gives up the password" allowances to law enforcement. And that's not even getting into the fact that Signal's owners, OWS, are located within the jurisdiction of the "we'll star-chamber NSL you on a moment's notice" US government. But Signal is perfect to stay private against non-nation-state actors. If I want to make sure that my ISP, mobile carrier, etc. can't snoop on my messages, Signal is my phone messenger of choice. Until and unless Facebook is demonstrated to not be on the level regarding Whatsapp's implementation of the Signal protocol, then I'll keep Whatsapp on the list as well. Telegram is not on that list. If my threat model consisted solely of "that guy with the manbun and macbook working on his novel in the coffeeshop", then maybe Telegram would be acceptable. Let me know when Telegram has default and mandatory end-to-end encryption, using a properly-implemented and proven-secure protocol like Signal's, on all clients both mobile and desktop. Until then I'll consider it to be about as secure as SMS - "hilariously not".
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        > properly-implemented and proven-secure You don't seem to realize this, but your argument is essentially "I trust Signal more", a purely authoritative one. And I don't think there even exists a threat model where anything that Signal offers over competition is important, especially given their obsession with control.
saagarjha 7y ago
They could index chats locally…
arkadiyt 7y ago
They have it available only for 1:1 chats and cryptographers have criticized their odd encryption scheme. They do not have it available for group chat at all, Telegram always has access to all group chat content.

vinay427 7y ago

Signal (the messenger) and Tutanota (for emails) both have search on their mobile clients with end-to-end encryption. It's definitely feasible to implement client-side search.

izacus 7y ago
Signal will also lose all your messaging history and kick you out of all your group conversations if your phone breaks or you lose it. It also has no usable automated backup solution or sync. It's also completely unable to work on multiple devices. Not really comparable in usability.
- interfixus 7y ago
  Also, it will snark on you to all contacts whenever you move to a new device. And plead with you to let it handle your ordinary sms texting, then hold your text messages hostage, not exportable back to any other app.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    It doesn't plead. It asks one time. At least on Android. I said no and it has never asked me again.
    - interfixus 7y ago
      It asked me a number of times. And it never warned that this was a oneway process.
      - interfixus 7y ago
        Idle curiosity: The above is a report of fact as observed by me. It's not really up for discussion - this is what happened. Could someone for our edification explain a bit about the reasoning behing their downvotes? Other than my having sinned in the church of moxie and his true disciple tptacek.
  - bigwavedave 7y ago
    Do you mean "nark"? "Snark" is when you use humor to pick at someone or something. "Narking" is being a tattle-tale.
    - interfixus 7y ago
      Yes, that was a late-night typo. Interested, although not surprised, to see my factually indisputable comment getting massively downvoted.
      - bigwavedave 7y ago
        I've never understood the culture with that on HN. I probably never will.
- prophesi 7y ago
  I don't think OP was recommending Signal / Tutanota as alternative apps to use, just showing that you can have your cake (E2E encryption) and eat it too (client-side search).
- checktheorder 7y ago
  >Signal will also lose all your messaging history and kick you out of all your group conversations if your phone breaks or you lose it. It also has no usable automated backup solution or sync. Depending on one's threat model, this could be considered a feature.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    If your point is that only people with a Mossad threat model should use Signal, I wholeheartedly agree.
    - checktheorder 7y ago
      Oh, please. If Mossad really wants my messages, they're not going to give up at the "Oh no, he uses Signal!" step. They're going to go full knee-wrench if they have to. And considering they have a habit of forging my country's passports, don't pretend that me living in another country is a barrier to that. The same goes for my country's government. Our laws are chock-full of "throw him in jail until he gives up the password" allowances to law enforcement. And that's not even getting into the fact that Signal's owners, OWS, are located within the jurisdiction of the "we'll star-chamber NSL you on a moment's notice" US government. But Signal is perfect to stay private against non-nation-state actors. If I want to make sure that my ISP, mobile carrier, etc. can't snoop on my messages, Signal is my phone messenger of choice. Until and unless Facebook is demonstrated to not be on the level regarding Whatsapp's implementation of the Signal protocol, then I'll keep Whatsapp on the list as well. Telegram is not on that list. If my threat model consisted solely of "that guy with the manbun and macbook working on his novel in the coffeeshop", then maybe Telegram would be acceptable. Let me know when Telegram has default and mandatory end-to-end encryption, using a properly-implemented and proven-secure protocol like Signal's, on all clients both mobile and desktop. Until then I'll consider it to be about as secure as SMS - "hilariously not".
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        > properly-implemented and proven-secure You don't seem to realize this, but your argument is essentially "I trust Signal more", a purely authoritative one. And I don't think there even exists a threat model where anything that Signal offers over competition is important, especially given their obsession with control.

saagarjha 7y ago

They could index chats locally…

arkadiyt 7y ago

They have it available only for 1:1 chats and cryptographers have criticized their odd encryption scheme. They do not have it available for group chat at all, Telegram always has access to all group chat content.