6 ms·

That's what the other user said and it is still incorrect. [0] People either don't read the basic FAQ or conflate E2EE to being the only encryption in the world

That's what the other user said and it is still incorrect. [0] People either don't read the basic FAQ or conflate E2EE to being the only encryption in the world, which is ridiculous. [0]: https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data

cassianoleal 4y ago
Honest question. Can you clarify this? I read the FAQ and even skimmed the MTProto 2.0 docs but from where I stand this Server-Client encryption sounds like encryption in transit but the server still has the ability to decrypt. This, from a privacy against law enforcement perspective (which is what the article and comments are about), is more or less the same as no encryption. Edit: s/transport/transit/, add "perspective" to the last paragraph.
- AnonC 4y ago
  It’s true that Telegram only uses encryption for data in transit for normal person-to-person chats and group chats. Data at rest is stored in a way the server can read. That’s one of the things that makes Telegram search so fast. The encryption part [1] is covered in the FAQ, along with more details. Also see the question and answer on “Fo you process data requests?” [2] Telegram has a feature called secret chats, which are only person-to-person. That uses end-to-end encryption. [1]: https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data [2]: https://telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests https://telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I'm aware of Secret Chats, but there's extra friction to enable it and I suspect most Telegram users are not aware of them at all - or are unwilling to use them for almost everything. Also they should now update that FAQ answer where they say: > To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments. In fact, if the OP is indeed true, they should probably update the entire answer since it's misguiding at best, and an outright lie at worst.
driminicus 4y ago
Encryption in transit is assumed, and rightfully so. That still means that telegram gets full access to the plaintext and as such is able to give that information to anyone, and do with it as they wish. I suppose there are some people pit there that think "unencrypted" here means everyone can listen in, but certainly not the hackernews crowd.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Encryption in transit is assumed, and rightfully so. Heh, we've come far. True unencrypted chat was once popular, and technically still exists (although most IRC networks now default people to TLS.)
nicce 4y ago
You don’t understand what it means. Server side encryption does not matter from the user perspective. Telegram has all the keys and they can access all the data, so there is no real privacy. For E2EE, you need to open seperate 1 on 1 chat, which is optional, not default. And what it comes to group chats or channels, none supports E2EE.
- WilTimSon 4y ago
  Server-side encryption = encryption. The fact that you don't find it sufficient and other opinions are irrelevant when it comes to people just plain wrongly stating things, such as "unencrypted" for clearly encrypted data. It's like going outside in the rain, getting wet and saying "Well, it's not actually raining, I didn't get a pint of water in my boots."
  - nicce 4y ago
    > Server-side encryption = encryption. The fact that you don't find it sufficient and other opinions are irrelevant when it comes to people just plain wrongly stating things, such as "unencrypted" for clearly encrypted data. We have clearly talked about E2EE (end-to-end encryption) and server side encryption is not that. E2EE means that it is encrypted between you and the message target. Server is the middle man, which should not have the access. Almost everything is already encrypted with TLS on the current world during transmissions and regulations require server side encryption. It is not even our main interest to talk about that anymore, we are past that. The main issue on the original post is the lack of E2EE.
  - croes 4y ago
    Encryption doesn't matter if Telegram has the keys. If you put the key next to a locked door it doesn't matter if you lock the door. Real encryption means that even Telegram couldn't decrypt it.
    - emptysongglass 4y ago
      But that's not "real" encryption. You're just abusing language — as most are in this thread — to get a result you want. If you want to discuss E2EE, do so but it does not make it more "real" than other encryption. Unencrypted is false. Not E2EE is true. Most use the former to wage war against an app they don't like because they prefer an app like Signal that satisfies their desirable qualities. Moxie actually started this trend and it is despicable. I'd say the exact same thing if Durov started referring to E2EE as "pedo-encryption" or anything else that distorts meaning. Don't distort meaning. Use precise language.
nl 4y ago
If you are claiming that encryption in transit is what people think means "encrypted chat" then you are misguided.
- AnonC 4y ago
  Not GP. But I think your comment would be more meaningful if you elaborated on “people” (like which people you’re referring to). Telegram markets itself as a secure messenger and its CEO has written many a times about WhatsApp being worse for security and privacy. I don’t think a non-tech person can differentiate well between these.
  - nl 4y ago
    I agree with everything you said. Telegram is outright lying of course. I can't remember if WhatsApp uses E2E encryption by default still or not. If not they are equivalent, but telegram isn't better in any meaningful way.
- gsich 4y ago
  Just clarify what you mean. E2E (sometimes with double E) is the correct term.
  - prophesi 4y ago
    Nah, when someone calls it an unencrypted messenger, one can assume they mean it's unencrypted on the server, as in-transit encryption is ubiquitous and thus a meaningless signifier.
    - gsich 4y ago
      No, this can't be assumed.
      - prophesi 4y ago
        Yes it can. If anyone reads "encrypted messenger" they're assuming only they and the intended recipients can decrypt it. Rather, this is more of a debate of what the layman expects, and frustration with misleading marketing. A great example of this is the whole Zoom debacle; they claimed it was encrypted, people assumed it was E2EE, and got a lot of blowback for that to the point that they ended up implementing E2EE. Another great example: a few of my friends were using Telegram for a while, and thought it was E2EE until I pointed out that only their "Secret Chat" feature is E2EE.
alpaca128 4y ago
> conflate E2EE to being the only encryption in the world It is the only relevant one. Nobody who cares about protected messages would be satisfied with untrustworthy encryption. Sure, technically even a messenger using Caesar cipher is encrypted, but most people expect more than a ticked checkbox. No real user cares about what technically still counts as encryption, just like nobody outside of biology cares whether walnuts are actually nuts.
tptacek 4y ago
Hop-by-hop encryption is practically useless in a secure messaging setting, and people shouldn't take the "TLS counts as encryption" argument seriously. But it's good Telegram advocates keep making it, because it's an easy way to sum up their security posture.

cassianoleal 4y ago

Honest question. Can you clarify this? I read the FAQ and even skimmed the MTProto 2.0 docs but from where I stand this Server-Client encryption sounds like encryption in transit but the server still has the ability to decrypt. This, from a privacy against law enforcement perspective (which is what the article and comments are about), is more or less the same as no encryption. Edit: s/transport/transit/, add "perspective" to the last paragraph.

AnonC 4y ago
It’s true that Telegram only uses encryption for data in transit for normal person-to-person chats and group chats. Data at rest is stored in a way the server can read. That’s one of the things that makes Telegram search so fast. The encryption part [1] is covered in the FAQ, along with more details. Also see the question and answer on “Fo you process data requests?” [2] Telegram has a feature called secret chats, which are only person-to-person. That uses end-to-end encryption. [1]: https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data https://telegram.org/faq#q-so-how-do-you-encrypt-data [2]: https://telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests https://telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  I'm aware of Secret Chats, but there's extra friction to enable it and I suspect most Telegram users are not aware of them at all - or are unwilling to use them for almost everything. Also they should now update that FAQ answer where they say: > To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments. In fact, if the OP is indeed true, they should probably update the entire answer since it's misguiding at best, and an outright lie at worst.

driminicus 4y ago

Encryption in transit is assumed, and rightfully so. That still means that telegram gets full access to the plaintext and as such is able to give that information to anyone, and do with it as they wish. I suppose there are some people pit there that think "unencrypted" here means everyone can listen in, but certainly not the hackernews crowd.

robonerd 4y ago
> Encryption in transit is assumed, and rightfully so. Heh, we've come far. True unencrypted chat was once popular, and technically still exists (although most IRC networks now default people to TLS.)

nicce 4y ago

You don’t understand what it means. Server side encryption does not matter from the user perspective. Telegram has all the keys and they can access all the data, so there is no real privacy. For E2EE, you need to open seperate 1 on 1 chat, which is optional, not default. And what it comes to group chats or channels, none supports E2EE.

WilTimSon 4y ago
Server-side encryption = encryption. The fact that you don't find it sufficient and other opinions are irrelevant when it comes to people just plain wrongly stating things, such as "unencrypted" for clearly encrypted data. It's like going outside in the rain, getting wet and saying "Well, it's not actually raining, I didn't get a pint of water in my boots."
- nicce 4y ago
  > Server-side encryption = encryption. The fact that you don't find it sufficient and other opinions are irrelevant when it comes to people just plain wrongly stating things, such as "unencrypted" for clearly encrypted data. We have clearly talked about E2EE (end-to-end encryption) and server side encryption is not that. E2EE means that it is encrypted between you and the message target. Server is the middle man, which should not have the access. Almost everything is already encrypted with TLS on the current world during transmissions and regulations require server side encryption. It is not even our main interest to talk about that anymore, we are past that. The main issue on the original post is the lack of E2EE.
- croes 4y ago
  Encryption doesn't matter if Telegram has the keys. If you put the key next to a locked door it doesn't matter if you lock the door. Real encryption means that even Telegram couldn't decrypt it.
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    But that's not "real" encryption. You're just abusing language — as most are in this thread — to get a result you want. If you want to discuss E2EE, do so but it does not make it more "real" than other encryption. Unencrypted is false. Not E2EE is true. Most use the former to wage war against an app they don't like because they prefer an app like Signal that satisfies their desirable qualities. Moxie actually started this trend and it is despicable. I'd say the exact same thing if Durov started referring to E2EE as "pedo-encryption" or anything else that distorts meaning. Don't distort meaning. Use precise language.

nl 4y ago

If you are claiming that encryption in transit is what people think means "encrypted chat" then you are misguided.

AnonC 4y ago
Not GP. But I think your comment would be more meaningful if you elaborated on “people” (like which people you’re referring to). Telegram markets itself as a secure messenger and its CEO has written many a times about WhatsApp being worse for security and privacy. I don’t think a non-tech person can differentiate well between these.
- nl 4y ago
  I agree with everything you said. Telegram is outright lying of course. I can't remember if WhatsApp uses E2E encryption by default still or not. If not they are equivalent, but telegram isn't better in any meaningful way.
gsich 4y ago
Just clarify what you mean. E2E (sometimes with double E) is the correct term.
- prophesi 4y ago
  Nah, when someone calls it an unencrypted messenger, one can assume they mean it's unencrypted on the server, as in-transit encryption is ubiquitous and thus a meaningless signifier.
  - gsich 4y ago
    No, this can't be assumed.
    - prophesi 4y ago
      Yes it can. If anyone reads "encrypted messenger" they're assuming only they and the intended recipients can decrypt it. Rather, this is more of a debate of what the layman expects, and frustration with misleading marketing. A great example of this is the whole Zoom debacle; they claimed it was encrypted, people assumed it was E2EE, and got a lot of blowback for that to the point that they ended up implementing E2EE. Another great example: a few of my friends were using Telegram for a while, and thought it was E2EE until I pointed out that only their "Secret Chat" feature is E2EE.

alpaca128 4y ago

> conflate E2EE to being the only encryption in the world It is the only relevant one. Nobody who cares about protected messages would be satisfied with untrustworthy encryption. Sure, technically even a messenger using Caesar cipher is encrypted, but most people expect more than a ticked checkbox. No real user cares about what technically still counts as encryption, just like nobody outside of biology cares whether walnuts are actually nuts.

tptacek 4y ago

Hop-by-hop encryption is practically useless in a secure messaging setting, and people shouldn't take the "TLS counts as encryption" argument seriously. But it's good Telegram advocates keep making it, because it's an easy way to sum up their security posture.