3 ms·

> I am quite aware how un-ergonomic such a messenger would be so I know that Telegram does little more than TLS protection of the network socket. And that's fin

> I am quite aware how un-ergonomic such a messenger would be so I know that Telegram does little more than TLS protection of the network socket. And that's fine with me and with millions of others. The amount of people who understand this certainly isn’t in the millions. The fact is that most Telegram users have no idea that their conversations aren’t encrypted, most people incorrectly assume that it’s more secure than whatsapp. > WhatsApp threads I've seen lately only aim at the user's data privacy and almost nobody ever mentions that their "encryption" is also a glorified TLS and their claims for end-to-end encryption are very likely dubious and a pure PR stunt. This is complete nonsense. Whatsapp uses the Signal Protocol. Their claims of end-to-end encryption are true (and easily verifiable! just pull out the debugger of your choice) > Admittedly some of the responses earlier -- which were very unconstructive -- got to me. I think your (perfectly understandable) misinterpretation was corrected in a rather polite manner, but you still wanted to argue after being corrected by multiple native english speakers.

pdimitar 6y ago
> This is complete nonsense. Whatsapp uses the Signal Protocol. Their claims of end-to-end encryption are true (and easily verifiable! just pull out the debugger of your choice) I don't dispute this but apparently there's still a way for Facebook to give FBI et. al. un-encrypted chats, no? So is that truly encrypted? > I think your (perfectly understandable) misinterpretation was corrected in a rather polite manner, but you still wanted to argue after being corrected by multiple native english speakers. Yes and no. Being a native speaker doesn't excuse ambiguity and idiomatic expressions. I believe people who write in English on the internet have a duty to avoid idioms as much as possible. I am not a native speaker and easily misrepresented the meaning. But, even the author corrected me so, okay. As for polite... let's agree to disagree there. You are questioning my opinion that I get snarky replies but IMO it's clearly visible that no small amount of replies weren't made in good faith and were only aimed to express hurtful sarcasm.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  >but apparently there's still a way for Facebook to give FBI et. al. un-encrypted chats, no? I’d love to see a source for this.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    Me too, but after Snowden I doubt we'd be able to even if it were true.
    - ryanlol 6y ago
      I don’t get it, this claim should be fairly easy to prove by reverse engineering the app.
      - pdimitar 6y ago
        Then why has nobody done it? F.ex. Google's Project Zero?
        pvg 6y ago
        You mean, why has nobody found WhatsApp is actually not E2E encrypted? Could it be it's because it's actually E2E encrypted? Your evidence to the contrary is no evidence at all and now you're asking why p0 hasn't found evidence of your position either. It's a very odd line of argument.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

pdimitar 6y ago

> This is complete nonsense. Whatsapp uses the Signal Protocol. Their claims of end-to-end encryption are true (and easily verifiable! just pull out the debugger of your choice) I don't dispute this but apparently there's still a way for Facebook to give FBI et. al. un-encrypted chats, no? So is that truly encrypted? > I think your (perfectly understandable) misinterpretation was corrected in a rather polite manner, but you still wanted to argue after being corrected by multiple native english speakers. Yes and no. Being a native speaker doesn't excuse ambiguity and idiomatic expressions. I believe people who write in English on the internet have a duty to avoid idioms as much as possible. I am not a native speaker and easily misrepresented the meaning. But, even the author corrected me so, okay. As for polite... let's agree to disagree there. You are questioning my opinion that I get snarky replies but IMO it's clearly visible that no small amount of replies weren't made in good faith and were only aimed to express hurtful sarcasm.

ryanlol 6y ago
>but apparently there's still a way for Facebook to give FBI et. al. un-encrypted chats, no? I’d love to see a source for this.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Me too, but after Snowden I doubt we'd be able to even if it were true.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    I don’t get it, this claim should be fairly easy to prove by reverse engineering the app.
    - pdimitar 6y ago
      Then why has nobody done it? F.ex. Google's Project Zero?
      - pvg 6y ago
        You mean, why has nobody found WhatsApp is actually not E2E encrypted? Could it be it's because it's actually E2E encrypted? Your evidence to the contrary is no evidence at all and now you're asking why p0 hasn't found evidence of your position either. It's a very odd line of argument.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]