4 ms·

>let’s assume that 25M users (as stated in the article) actually moved to Telegram Oh the irony of a knee jerk reaction fleeing an end-to-end encrypted messagi

by MertsA 6y ago

>let’s assume that 25M users (as stated in the article) actually moved to Telegram Oh the irony of a knee jerk reaction fleeing an end-to-end encrypted messaging service to a messaging service that only offers opt-in encryption that more often than not doesn't get used. There was never any proposal to remove encryption anywhere, only add a new feature that, by the very nature of it, didn't lend itself to practical end-to-end encryption.

bastawhiz 6y ago
People choose their messaging apps for reasons other than privacy. And there's nothing wrong with that.
- mshroyer 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with it if, and only if, people understand that's the choice they're making. Here we have an exodus driven by *privacy* concerns surrounding the new policy. Users fled from WhatsApp to other services with the intent of keeping their conversations more private. The subset of those who switched to Telegram made their conversations strictly *less* private, achieving the opposite of their goals. There is something wrong with that.
  - xrisk 6y ago
    I wouldn't conflate privacy with encryption necessarily.
    - Normille 6y ago
      ^^ This. There's "I'm plotting criminal activities or planning to overthrow my government" messaging which requires secure encryption. And there's "I don't particularly want to be followed round the intarwebs by adverts for piles ointment, because I mentioned my itchy arse in a message to someone" which requires respect for your privacy. I reckon most of us are happy enough with the latter in daily use. And, when we do need to plot an overthrow of the government, we can always flick the big "secret chat" switch. I think Telegram just about gets the balance right; sacrificing some default secrecy for ease of use, seamless sync across all your devices and 'fun' things which are likely to lead to wider adoption --whilst also allowing you to switch on the more secure stuff, as and when you need it.
  - bastawhiz 6y ago
    > Users fled from WhatsApp to other services with the intent of keeping their conversations more private. That's not strictly true. Users fled whatsapp to keep their messages away from Facebook. It could be a concern for privacy or a concern for not letting Facebook (specifically) monetize their conversations.
- onion2k 6y ago
  People who leave a service when the terms change in a way that negatively impacts their privacy are clearly choosing based on privacy reasons though (mostly anyway, some might be leaving because their friends left).
  - makomk 6y ago
    Except that the terms of service didn't change in a way that negatively impacted their privacy - they were taken in by misinformation that was left to spread unchallenged because the mainstream media had an axe to grind against Facebook. The net impact of which is that their conversations are now less private and they don't even realise it.
    - throwaway372628 6y ago
      Beware of the malicious PR campaign carried out by Facebook. The terms did change in a negative way, it’s enough to read them to see it. Even for EU users. Later, when Facebook realized this time things would not be ignored, they started their PR campaign. First the claimed that in EU there would be no changes, then (first time I see it in the linked article) they claimed that there were no changes anywhere in the world. At the end of the day what matters is what is in the terms, not what the spokesperson claims. And in the terms there is no opt-out from sharing data with Facebook.
      - dexterlemmer 6y ago
        The terms did not change in a malicous way, because they were already malicious. There never was an opt-out of sharing data with Facebook: > Specifically, users had 30 days after first seeing the 2016 privacy policy notice to opt out of “shar[ing] my WhatsApp account information with Facebook to improve my Facebook ads and product experiences.” The emphasis is ours; it meant that WhatsApp users were able to opt out of seeing visible changes to Facebook ads or Facebook friend recommendations, but could not opt out of the data collection and sharing itself. Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/its-business-usual-whatsapp https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/its-business-usual-wha...
monopoledance 6y ago
I get some trust from the fact that Telegram is the chosen platform for drug dealers and terrorists around the world. The metadata in Signal actually got people in trouble... Whatever flaws Telegram got, it seems less impactful than getting mined by facebook and the practical design failings of Signal.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Why are telegram’s owners assigned to be better than Facebook? I can see some benefit with Signal being open source.
  - monopoledance 6y ago
    Telegram's clients are also FOSS. Anyway, I am not advocating for Telegram. Just stating my trust feelz with Signal and Telegram. I wouldn't use either for anything where my mere association would be a risk.
- SiteRelEnby 6y ago
  Care to provide a source for your claims about Signal?
  - monopoledance 6y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-rightwing-messages-chat-records https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-righ... I think this may have been resolved now. However the issue remains that you cannot delete signal contacts and legacy groups, which means anyone who gets a hold on your phone number (without a pin) or phone, or account access to third party involved, got evidence for communication between you and a possible incriminating entity. > Contacts must be blocked in order to be removed from your Signal Contact List. To learn how to block someone, click here. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319011-Manage-Contacts https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319011-Ma... You either have the contact in your contact list, or block list... I hope that's obviously supporting my claim. Some of these meta data leaks may have been changed and are a result of my old account, however Signal lost my trust. (And lost sympathy over Moxy Marlinspike's opinions and presentation over time, e.g. the hangover/drunk "centralization: good" CCC talk, the F-droid drama, ...)

by MertsA 6y ago

bastawhiz 6y ago

People choose their messaging apps for reasons other than privacy. And there's nothing wrong with that.

mshroyer 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with it if, and only if, people understand that's the choice they're making. Here we have an exodus driven by *privacy* concerns surrounding the new policy. Users fled from WhatsApp to other services with the intent of keeping their conversations more private. The subset of those who switched to Telegram made their conversations strictly *less* private, achieving the opposite of their goals. There is something wrong with that.
- xrisk 6y ago
  I wouldn't conflate privacy with encryption necessarily.
  - Normille 6y ago
    ^^ This. There's "I'm plotting criminal activities or planning to overthrow my government" messaging which requires secure encryption. And there's "I don't particularly want to be followed round the intarwebs by adverts for piles ointment, because I mentioned my itchy arse in a message to someone" which requires respect for your privacy. I reckon most of us are happy enough with the latter in daily use. And, when we do need to plot an overthrow of the government, we can always flick the big "secret chat" switch. I think Telegram just about gets the balance right; sacrificing some default secrecy for ease of use, seamless sync across all your devices and 'fun' things which are likely to lead to wider adoption --whilst also allowing you to switch on the more secure stuff, as and when you need it.
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  > Users fled from WhatsApp to other services with the intent of keeping their conversations more private. That's not strictly true. Users fled whatsapp to keep their messages away from Facebook. It could be a concern for privacy or a concern for not letting Facebook (specifically) monetize their conversations.
onion2k 6y ago
People who leave a service when the terms change in a way that negatively impacts their privacy are clearly choosing based on privacy reasons though (mostly anyway, some might be leaving because their friends left).
- makomk 6y ago
  Except that the terms of service didn't change in a way that negatively impacted their privacy - they were taken in by misinformation that was left to spread unchallenged because the mainstream media had an axe to grind against Facebook. The net impact of which is that their conversations are now less private and they don't even realise it.
  - throwaway372628 6y ago
    Beware of the malicious PR campaign carried out by Facebook. The terms did change in a negative way, it’s enough to read them to see it. Even for EU users. Later, when Facebook realized this time things would not be ignored, they started their PR campaign. First the claimed that in EU there would be no changes, then (first time I see it in the linked article) they claimed that there were no changes anywhere in the world. At the end of the day what matters is what is in the terms, not what the spokesperson claims. And in the terms there is no opt-out from sharing data with Facebook.
    - dexterlemmer 6y ago
      The terms did not change in a malicous way, because they were already malicious. There never was an opt-out of sharing data with Facebook: > Specifically, users had 30 days after first seeing the 2016 privacy policy notice to opt out of “shar[ing] my WhatsApp account information with Facebook to improve my Facebook ads and product experiences.” The emphasis is ours; it meant that WhatsApp users were able to opt out of seeing visible changes to Facebook ads or Facebook friend recommendations, but could not opt out of the data collection and sharing itself. Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/its-business-usual-whatsapp https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/its-business-usual-wha...

monopoledance 6y ago

I get some trust from the fact that Telegram is the chosen platform for drug dealers and terrorists around the world. The metadata in Signal actually got people in trouble... Whatever flaws Telegram got, it seems less impactful than getting mined by facebook and the practical design failings of Signal.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Why are telegram’s owners assigned to be better than Facebook? I can see some benefit with Signal being open source.
- monopoledance 6y ago
  Telegram's clients are also FOSS. Anyway, I am not advocating for Telegram. Just stating my trust feelz with Signal and Telegram. I wouldn't use either for anything where my mere association would be a risk.
SiteRelEnby 6y ago
Care to provide a source for your claims about Signal?
- monopoledance 6y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-rightwing-messages-chat-records https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-righ... I think this may have been resolved now. However the issue remains that you cannot delete signal contacts and legacy groups, which means anyone who gets a hold on your phone number (without a pin) or phone, or account access to third party involved, got evidence for communication between you and a possible incriminating entity. > Contacts must be blocked in order to be removed from your Signal Contact List. To learn how to block someone, click here. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319011-Manage-Contacts https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319011-Ma... You either have the contact in your contact list, or block list... I hope that's obviously supporting my claim. Some of these meta data leaks may have been changed and are a result of my old account, however Signal lost my trust. (And lost sympathy over Moxy Marlinspike's opinions and presentation over time, e.g. the hangover/drunk "centralization: good" CCC talk, the F-droid drama, ...)