5 ms·
I found it always fishy that telegram applauds itself for being a secure messenger but decided against encryption by default. With the flick of a switch every d
by throwmeariver1 5y ago
I found it always fishy that telegram applauds itself for being a secure messenger but decided against encryption by default. With the flick of a switch every doubt would go away but alas.
- pantulis 5y agoI have also been amused by the number of technical people that prefer Telegram vs Whatsapp in terms of security.
- ramesh31 5y ago>I have also been amused by the number of technical people that prefer Telegram vs Whatsapp in terms of security. Tribalism is a helluva drug.
- spacemanmatt 5y agoI have also been amused by the number of technical people that prefer anything vs Signal in terms of security.
- saagarjha 5y agoI've been amused by the number of technical people that prefer Signal vs just not shutting up about the messaging app they use and not pretending like they're some sort of authority on the topic instead of someone who deals with SOC2 compliance daily. (This is actually independent of you or Signal, I just find it amusing that people throw their security brand™ behind some app and it's just them picking the one they like most of the time.)
- spacemanmatt 5y agoIt would be way weirder if people threw their brand support behind an app they didn't even like enough to use.
- codedokode 5y agoSignal requires a phone number and doesn't allow anonymous usage as I understand.
- older 5y agoSignal is designed for privacy, not for anonymity.
- paganel 5y ago> Telegram vs Whatsapp in terms of security. The 3-letter US agencies do not have direct access to Telegram's servers, they do have when it comes to Whatsapp (or to any other US-based company). The same goes if you're a Russian doing anti-government stuff in, well, Russia, it's better to put your fate in Whatsapp's (and Meta's) hands, presumably the US agencies won't come after you for being against the Russian government. It's a classical game of arbitration (for lack of a better word).
- cout 5y agoI agree with your logic, though a paranoid person might point out that they don't need access to telegram's servers; access to the app store or to automatic OS updates would be enough.
- older 5y ago> The 3-letter US agencies do not have direct access to Telegram's servers What makes you think so?
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI'm only tangentially aware of secure messaging apps. How do you feel about Signal? What is your preferred client?
- throwmeariver1 5y agoTelegram is fine if you just use it for 1on1 conversation with encryption enabled. The same goes for whatsapp (encryption is enabled by default). If you are looking for secure group chats signal would be my choice because it skips the server (WhatsApp sends all group messages to a server before distributing it). There are also more exotic providers like threema, matrix and many others but the onboarding for non technical users is harder, though they also have advantages like not needing a telephone number to sign up. For the general public I would use Signal mainly because it’s directly in the middle of security and ease of use.
- cout 5y agoEnd-to-end encrypted by default doesn't mean much if you don't trust the third party providing the software that does the encryption. One automatic app update can enable leaking of encrypted communication.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoThe bigger problems for me would be the appstores because they could implement a mitm. Telegram and Signal have their client sources open so you at least can check and compile them yourself but if I would handle data that was so sensitive that I can't trust any other entity I would just self host matrix or xmpp and chat with myself...