7 ms·

My guess is that the priorization is different - signal implements everything with a privacy first approach in mind, whereas telegram is not even encrypted by d

by domano 6y ago

My guess is that the priorization is different - signal implements everything with a privacy first approach in mind, whereas telegram is not even encrypted by default (even Whatsapp does that AFAIK).

einpoklum 6y ago
That's not it. That is, choosing whether conversations are encrypted by default or not has very little to do with whether the client application has polished UI.
saddlerustle 6y ago
WhatsApp is encrypted by default
- croes 6y ago
  That's what he/she wrote.
xvector 6y ago
Signal requires a telephone number. This makes the privacy bit is a complete joke, even if your chats are E2EE. Your Signal account is bound to a KYC identity.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Privacy and anonymity are distinct concepts. Signals provides very high privacy and low anonymity - which is totally acceptable for many people's threat model. Other apps may provide higher anonymity, but none provide privacy guarantees higher than (or even close to) Signal.
  - corty 6y ago
    Privacy and anonymity are distinct, but strongly correlated. Without anonymity, there will always be enough metadata to hang you with. Using Signal as a surveillance-evasion-tool will get you into trouble in a lot of the more unsavoury corners of this planet. So, being "best" at privacy is meaningless unless you are in the very lucky position that your local jurisdiction fits Signal's threat model. There aren't many in the west even...
    - blazzy 6y ago
      Meaningless? I value private communication with my friends and family. I don't exactly need anonymity there. In fact I want the opposite. In the absence of phone numbers I would be adding very explicit metadata on my device to distinguish between my friends. Signal has taken measures to limit its ability to know who I'm sending and receiving messages from. Though it's still possible by mapping my IP address to me. So yes there is still a centralized metadata problem, but I'm not letting perfect stand in the way of better.
    - upofadown 6y ago
      >Without anonymity, there will always be enough metadata to hang you with. Not in most cases, for most people, most of the time. Everyone knows you communicate with your family, friends and business associates. Very few people communicate out of those groups and even if they do they rarely have to worry about anyone finding out about it.
      - saurik 6y ago
        Umm... in fact "most people" communicate outside of those groups, as that's how dating works, and it is a big reason why Snapchat dominates "private communication": people don't want to give their "real phone number" to someone until they trust them. Signal needs to realize its big competition is not WhatsApp, but is Snapchat (particularly given that WhatsApp is pretty damned secure, and so should be seen as an ally versus all of the actually-insecure messaging apps of the world).
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  can anyone commment on the design consideration that the telephone requirement addresses?
  - xvector 6y ago
    This is designed to make Signal more popular while solving some fake account issues: - Using phone numbers means that Signal can constantly check against your contacts to let you know if any of your contacts are now using Signal. As such, using phone numbers encourages use of Signal. - The usage of phone numbers instead of email or usernames also helps combat temporary/fake account creation abuse, as phone numbers are KYC if you ban VoIP numbers That said, in the end it is a compromise on privacy and anonymity to increase the popularity and stability of the app.
alerighi 6y ago
To me Telegram is better even from a privacy point. Sure, if someone breaks into the Telegram servers can read you messages, but to me that isn't the first privacy concern. I'm more concerned about every day privacy, and Telegram is far better on them. Do you realized that you sent by mistake some data to the wrong people? In Telegram you can delete or edit every messages you want whenever you want. Don't you want to share your phone number in a group? In Telegram your phone number is hidden by default, meaning that other group members doesn't see you number unless you share it with them. Also Signal is open source but not really open. In Telegram you can use whatever client you want, in Signal you are forbidden to use anything else than the official client. And the official client is open source, but it depends on proprietary services, like the Google Play services on Android, so you really can't use it on a 100% open source system. You can't even find online the Signal apk by their choice, so the only official way is to install it from the Google Play Store (and how do you verify that the apk that Google provided to you doesn't contain a backdoor?)
- growse 6y ago
  > To me Telegram is better even from a privacy point. Sure, if someone breaks into the Telegram servers can read you messages, but to me that isn't the first privacy concern. For a lot of people, that's exactly the concern. > Also Signal is open source but not really open. In Telegram you can use whatever client you want, in Signal you are forbidden to use anything else than the official client. There's nothing in open source that requires people running services to allow anyone to connect to it however they like. You still have the freedom to inspect, modify, run and distribute both the server and client, so it's to see what part of that in "not really open". > And the official client is open source, but it depends on proprietary services, like the Google Play services on Android, so you really can't use it on a 100% open source system. I agree, this is annoying. But it depends on your threat model and it seems that most people don't see Google as the threat to protect against. > You can't even find online the Signal apk by their choice, so the only official way is to install it from the Google Play Store https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ > (and how do you verify that the apk that Google provided to you doesn't contain a backdoor?) https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/
Sebb767 6y ago
> telegram is not even encrypted by default That's technically not true - it's not end-to-end-encrypted by default. But yes, it is a design choice - telegram puts usability first - see all their innovations with large groups, stickers etc -, even at the expense of some privacy (i.e. no e2e-chats). But that's why you can have Telegram open on every device you own and probably why they are the second largest chat app by now. Signal, on the other hand, values privacy first, everything else second. This is why this bug is open for 6 months - they see your chat log as a convenience feature and mostly a burden. In addition, Signal is a smaller team with less funding, so that their UI is not as polished is partially also due to lacking manpower, but its simply not a priority for them.
SignalNotSecure 6y ago
Whatsapp E2E is a red herring. It's not protecting you from your perceived threat like you think it is. https://telegra.ph/Why-WhatsApp-Will-Never-Be-Secure-05-15 https://telegra.ph/Why-WhatsApp-Will-Never-Be-Secure-05-15
- domano 6y ago
  Sure i agree, just saying that even WhatsApp ticks that box in some way.

by domano 6y ago

My guess is that the priorization is different - signal implements everything with a privacy first approach in mind, whereas telegram is not even encrypted by default (even Whatsapp does that AFAIK).

einpoklum 6y ago

That's not it. That is, choosing whether conversations are encrypted by default or not has very little to do with whether the client application has polished UI.

saddlerustle 6y ago

WhatsApp is encrypted by default

croes 6y ago
That's what he/she wrote.

xvector 6y ago

Signal requires a telephone number. This makes the privacy bit is a complete joke, even if your chats are E2EE. Your Signal account is bound to a KYC identity.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Privacy and anonymity are distinct concepts. Signals provides very high privacy and low anonymity - which is totally acceptable for many people's threat model. Other apps may provide higher anonymity, but none provide privacy guarantees higher than (or even close to) Signal.
- corty 6y ago
  Privacy and anonymity are distinct, but strongly correlated. Without anonymity, there will always be enough metadata to hang you with. Using Signal as a surveillance-evasion-tool will get you into trouble in a lot of the more unsavoury corners of this planet. So, being "best" at privacy is meaningless unless you are in the very lucky position that your local jurisdiction fits Signal's threat model. There aren't many in the west even...
  - blazzy 6y ago
    Meaningless? I value private communication with my friends and family. I don't exactly need anonymity there. In fact I want the opposite. In the absence of phone numbers I would be adding very explicit metadata on my device to distinguish between my friends. Signal has taken measures to limit its ability to know who I'm sending and receiving messages from. Though it's still possible by mapping my IP address to me. So yes there is still a centralized metadata problem, but I'm not letting perfect stand in the way of better.
  - upofadown 6y ago
    >Without anonymity, there will always be enough metadata to hang you with. Not in most cases, for most people, most of the time. Everyone knows you communicate with your family, friends and business associates. Very few people communicate out of those groups and even if they do they rarely have to worry about anyone finding out about it.
    - saurik 6y ago
      Umm... in fact "most people" communicate outside of those groups, as that's how dating works, and it is a big reason why Snapchat dominates "private communication": people don't want to give their "real phone number" to someone until they trust them. Signal needs to realize its big competition is not WhatsApp, but is Snapchat (particularly given that WhatsApp is pretty damned secure, and so should be seen as an ally versus all of the actually-insecure messaging apps of the world).
appleflaxen 6y ago
can anyone commment on the design consideration that the telephone requirement addresses?
- xvector 6y ago
  This is designed to make Signal more popular while solving some fake account issues: - Using phone numbers means that Signal can constantly check against your contacts to let you know if any of your contacts are now using Signal. As such, using phone numbers encourages use of Signal. - The usage of phone numbers instead of email or usernames also helps combat temporary/fake account creation abuse, as phone numbers are KYC if you ban VoIP numbers That said, in the end it is a compromise on privacy and anonymity to increase the popularity and stability of the app.

alerighi 6y ago

To me Telegram is better even from a privacy point. Sure, if someone breaks into the Telegram servers can read you messages, but to me that isn't the first privacy concern. I'm more concerned about every day privacy, and Telegram is far better on them. Do you realized that you sent by mistake some data to the wrong people? In Telegram you can delete or edit every messages you want whenever you want. Don't you want to share your phone number in a group? In Telegram your phone number is hidden by default, meaning that other group members doesn't see you number unless you share it with them. Also Signal is open source but not really open. In Telegram you can use whatever client you want, in Signal you are forbidden to use anything else than the official client. And the official client is open source, but it depends on proprietary services, like the Google Play services on Android, so you really can't use it on a 100% open source system. You can't even find online the Signal apk by their choice, so the only official way is to install it from the Google Play Store (and how do you verify that the apk that Google provided to you doesn't contain a backdoor?)

growse 6y ago
> To me Telegram is better even from a privacy point. Sure, if someone breaks into the Telegram servers can read you messages, but to me that isn't the first privacy concern. For a lot of people, that's exactly the concern. > Also Signal is open source but not really open. In Telegram you can use whatever client you want, in Signal you are forbidden to use anything else than the official client. There's nothing in open source that requires people running services to allow anyone to connect to it however they like. You still have the freedom to inspect, modify, run and distribute both the server and client, so it's to see what part of that in "not really open". > And the official client is open source, but it depends on proprietary services, like the Google Play services on Android, so you really can't use it on a 100% open source system. I agree, this is annoying. But it depends on your threat model and it seems that most people don't see Google as the threat to protect against. > You can't even find online the Signal apk by their choice, so the only official way is to install it from the Google Play Store https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ > (and how do you verify that the apk that Google provided to you doesn't contain a backdoor?) https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/

Sebb767 6y ago

> telegram is not even encrypted by default That's technically not true - it's not end-to-end-encrypted by default. But yes, it is a design choice - telegram puts usability first - see all their innovations with large groups, stickers etc -, even at the expense of some privacy (i.e. no e2e-chats). But that's why you can have Telegram open on every device you own and probably why they are the second largest chat app by now. Signal, on the other hand, values privacy first, everything else second. This is why this bug is open for 6 months - they see your chat log as a convenience feature and mostly a burden. In addition, Signal is a smaller team with less funding, so that their UI is not as polished is partially also due to lacking manpower, but its simply not a priority for them.

SignalNotSecure 6y ago

Whatsapp E2E is a red herring. It's not protecting you from your perceived threat like you think it is. https://telegra.ph/Why-WhatsApp-Will-Never-Be-Secure-05-15 https://telegra.ph/Why-WhatsApp-Will-Never-Be-Secure-05-15

domano 6y ago
Sure i agree, just saying that even WhatsApp ticks that box in some way.