3 ms·
No, it is not. And we need to get clear on our use of words and the games we play with words and their meaning to make others look bad. People understand that
by emptysongglass 5y ago
No, it is not. And we need to get clear on our use of words and the games we play with words and their meaning to make others look bad.
People understand that when we say passwords were stored in plaintext on a company's breached servers it's a lot more severe than when we say passwords were stored encrypted on a company's breached servers. If the encryption key was also leaked, we're in as much trouble as scenario A.
It is an abuse of our understanding of these words, which stand related but differentiated to each other, to use the word "plaintext" from scenario A interchangeably for "encrypted" in scenario B.
That is, at best, manipulative of people like you and I and of a media which is all too willing to stoke the fires of outrage.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago> No, it is not. Which part are you referring to? I made a couple claims. A. Telegram has access to all plain text content B. Someone with access to Telegrams infrastructure has access to plain text content C. Telegram is less encrypted than Facebook messenger The first, I stand by. The second does make a few assumptions. The second assumption, that if you have access to the infrastructure you could get access to the private key, this may not be true. Depending on how well they manage their systems. Something that any user will have to trust vs a trust less e2ee system. The final one is, admittedly, incorrect. I misspoke. It’s _as encrypted_ as Facebook Messenger, and _less encrypted_ than WhatsApp.