I was put off at the very beginning of the article by the claim that it was a "backdoor". None of the sources I read even alluded to this, and in fact, it was,

I was put off at the very beginning of the article by the claim that it was a "backdoor". None of the sources I read even alluded to this, and in fact, it was, as far as I understood, a very "classical" buffer overflow problem. But I went ahead with the article and it's just marketing spiel for Telegram. Basically based around FUD. - Telegram offers opensource clients and WhatsApp doesn't. - Casts doubt about the actual implementation of E2E encryption in WhatsApp. And his claim of "you can't be sure" is actually pretty wrong. There have been open-source clients (of limited success) but they still prove that it is indeed at least implemented. - I think the author is missing the fact that WhatsApp's encryption is, technically, documented in a whitepaper that highlights all of the protocol and how to different tokens and keys are generated and recycled. Because he clearly thinks Telegram is the only one to document its encryption. Overall, I love Telegram, I use it daily. I don't mind the lack of demonstrable privacy, because I really don't need it for what I do on Telegram. It's convenient and I love the cross-platform TRUE clients, none of that webapp packaging stuff (Seriously the QT client is amazing). But this is almost all wrong ...