3 ms·

Oh please. You're complaining about technical person evaluating technical product on technical level, on a technical forum. E2EE is the bare minimum for securi

by maqp 5y ago

Oh please. You're complaining about technical person evaluating technical product on technical level, on a technical forum. E2EE is the bare minimum for security these days, as so carefully explained by the message you're replying to. "If someone were to come to me and offer me E2EE by default without those features I would say no thank you." This is such a loaded and unthoughtful comment. It assumes you have to make a choice. You don't, at least per technical reasoning. The only situation where you can't have E2EE is massive groups, and it's obvious those have no expectation of privacy. Anything else, I can explain to you on a technical level why it can be done in a privacy preserving way, and the only reason its not, is because Telegram's team lacks the know-how. Signal has already shown they can pull off pretty much any feature in a privacy preserving way. So the question is not "what features do I need", but "should all my features be actual features". A feature that doesn't protect your privacy by definition can be used to spy on you, and I'm sure we both agree that is not a feature. So ask yourself Group chat with end-to-end encryption (Signal) or Group chat without end-to-end encryption (Telegram). Which one do you choose? The answer is obvious. >What I don't want is a corporation behind my chat app Also, you should know Telegram is not a non-profit like Signal. Telegram is a limited liability _company_. It's a for-profit entity, and the LLC only means, the owners are "legally responsible for its debts only to the extent of the amount of capital they invested".

emptysongglass 5y ago
> This is such a loaded and unthoughtful comment. It assumes you have to make a choice. You don't, at least per technical reasoning. When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then, the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding. As Signal's client is open source and its server is whenever they feel like it, I'm sure they'd also value your contribution to prove out your point.
- maqp 5y ago
  So to return to your original post: >"Actual multi-session clients across devices." Not available with E2EE >"No Electron." Sure, because you need all 32GB of RAM but not your human right to privacy. Also, this is an argument against Signal's client, not excuse why you can't have E2EE on non-electron native client. >"Truck loads of features and thoughtful touches everywhere." So, eye candy. Not very strong argument. >"Searching through your messages" Only exact messages. Gets incredibly slow once you go past few weeks. Client-side searchers are as fast as your phone, i.e., fast. >"video chats" Not E2EE for groups >"best stickers" 1:1 match between my Signal and Telegram sticker packs (50+ packs) >"even though there are technical trade-offs to an E2EE-everywhere model" The problem with this BS claim, is you can't point to a single trade-off. Everything you mentioned can be done with E2EE. >"but do wish it was an option in group chats." So the question is, why aren't you demanding it? >"When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then" Again, which features? Please provide an actual, exact list so we know when to ping you. >"the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding." The problem when you add a ton of sugar into a pot of porridge made from shit, is now you have a ton of sugar with an even coating of shit in it. No matter how much eye candy you glue on top of insecure design and spaghetti code that is Telegram, the fundamental truth is, it was never empowering you, only its owners who are collecting as much data about you as FB does, if not more. EDIT: Fixed lack of E2EE on video calls to mean group video calls. Apologies if this looks like moving the goal post, not my intention.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    Hey bud, you're really writing aggressively. I'm not really here for that. But I do think it's important to debunk misinformation and this: >>"video chats" > Not E2EE ...isn't true. Please see https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end/video-calls https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end/video-calls
    - maqp 5y ago
      You're right in that the 1:1 video chats are E2EE, but not group video chats. This is my concern, but since you weren't making the claim, it's my mistake and now fixed. It's not my intention to be aggressive towards you or anyone else. It's the argument (or lack of arguments) I'm attacking, not the person.
  - lpcvoid 5y ago
    Actually, I value a non-electron client way higher than E2EE. In fact, the incredible desktop client is one of the main reasons I am a huge Telegram proponent.

by maqp 5y ago

emptysongglass 5y ago

> This is such a loaded and unthoughtful comment. It assumes you have to make a choice. You don't, at least per technical reasoning. When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then, the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding. As Signal's client is open source and its server is whenever they feel like it, I'm sure they'd also value your contribution to prove out your point.

maqp 5y ago
So to return to your original post: >"Actual multi-session clients across devices." Not available with E2EE >"No Electron." Sure, because you need all 32GB of RAM but not your human right to privacy. Also, this is an argument against Signal's client, not excuse why you can't have E2EE on non-electron native client. >"Truck loads of features and thoughtful touches everywhere." So, eye candy. Not very strong argument. >"Searching through your messages" Only exact messages. Gets incredibly slow once you go past few weeks. Client-side searchers are as fast as your phone, i.e., fast. >"video chats" Not E2EE for groups >"best stickers" 1:1 match between my Signal and Telegram sticker packs (50+ packs) >"even though there are technical trade-offs to an E2EE-everywhere model" The problem with this BS claim, is you can't point to a single trade-off. Everything you mentioned can be done with E2EE. >"but do wish it was an option in group chats." So the question is, why aren't you demanding it? >"When Signal provides these features, please feel free to ping me back here but until then" Again, which features? Please provide an actual, exact list so we know when to ping you. >"the proof is in the pudding and the Signal pudding doesn't taste like the Telegram pudding." The problem when you add a ton of sugar into a pot of porridge made from shit, is now you have a ton of sugar with an even coating of shit in it. No matter how much eye candy you glue on top of insecure design and spaghetti code that is Telegram, the fundamental truth is, it was never empowering you, only its owners who are collecting as much data about you as FB does, if not more. EDIT: Fixed lack of E2EE on video calls to mean group video calls. Apologies if this looks like moving the goal post, not my intention.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Hey bud, you're really writing aggressively. I'm not really here for that. But I do think it's important to debunk misinformation and this: >>"video chats" > Not E2EE ...isn't true. Please see https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end/video-calls https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end/video-calls
  - maqp 5y ago
    You're right in that the 1:1 video chats are E2EE, but not group video chats. This is my concern, but since you weren't making the claim, it's my mistake and now fixed. It's not my intention to be aggressive towards you or anyone else. It's the argument (or lack of arguments) I'm attacking, not the person.
- lpcvoid 5y ago
  Actually, I value a non-electron client way higher than E2EE. In fact, the incredible desktop client is one of the main reasons I am a huge Telegram proponent.