3 ms·

> Just because that the messages might be sent end-to-end encrypted from Sue to Joe does not mean Meta cannot read them. so what's the point? just inconvenien

by kome 4y ago

> Just because that the messages might be sent end-to-end encrypted from Sue to Joe does not mean Meta cannot read them. so what's the point? just inconvenience. better to use telegram at this point.

codethief 4y ago
…and have no encryption at all? (Unless you manually enable it for a given conversation.)
- kome 4y ago
  Telegram has encryption (server-client encryption). Whatsapp may have e2e encryption, but then if it sends conversation or part of them to facebook to serve advertising, that's arguably even worse.
  - codethief 4y ago
    Wait, so Telegram, which is known for being able to read all your texts, is worse than WhatsApp where people are speculating that it might read your texts? Not that I trust WhatsApp (I use Signal) but that's an odd comparison.
    - kome 4y ago
      you are also speculating that Telegram read our messages, in transit. For sure, unlike WhatsApp, the Telegram client is FOSS (and you can download it from FDroid).
      - codethief 4y ago
        I'm not speculating at all and I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. First of all, transport security (server-client encryption as you called it) like TLS is irrelevant for this discussion. All major platforms on the internet employ transport security these days, so this is a given. The point I'm trying to make is that Telegram does not offer E2E encryption by default: (Non-"secret") Messages on Telegram pass through Telegram's servers unencrypted and are also stored there unencrypted, meaning that Telegram has access to all your messages. This is not speculation – Telegram openly admits to this in their FAQ: https://telegram.org/faq?setln=ru#q-do-i-need-to-trust-telegram-for-this-to-be-secure https://telegram.org/faq?setln=ru#q-do-i-need-to-trust-teleg... (See also the link contained therein.) Meanwhile, the speculations in the present HN discussions aside, WhatsApp does provide E2E encryption, so – from this POV – is orders of magnitude more secure.

by kome 4y ago

> Just because that the messages might be sent end-to-end encrypted from Sue to Joe does not mean Meta cannot read them. so what's the point? just inconvenience. better to use telegram at this point.

codethief 4y ago

…and have no encryption at all? (Unless you manually enable it for a given conversation.)

kome 4y ago
Telegram has encryption (server-client encryption). Whatsapp may have e2e encryption, but then if it sends conversation or part of them to facebook to serve advertising, that's arguably even worse.
- codethief 4y ago
  Wait, so Telegram, which is known for being able to read all your texts, is worse than WhatsApp where people are speculating that it might read your texts? Not that I trust WhatsApp (I use Signal) but that's an odd comparison.
  - kome 4y ago
    you are also speculating that Telegram read our messages, in transit. For sure, unlike WhatsApp, the Telegram client is FOSS (and you can download it from FDroid).
    - codethief 4y ago
      I'm not speculating at all and I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. First of all, transport security (server-client encryption as you called it) like TLS is irrelevant for this discussion. All major platforms on the internet employ transport security these days, so this is a given. The point I'm trying to make is that Telegram does not offer E2E encryption by default: (Non-"secret") Messages on Telegram pass through Telegram's servers unencrypted and are also stored there unencrypted, meaning that Telegram has access to all your messages. This is not speculation – Telegram openly admits to this in their FAQ: https://telegram.org/faq?setln=ru#q-do-i-need-to-trust-telegram-for-this-to-be-secure https://telegram.org/faq?setln=ru#q-do-i-need-to-trust-teleg... (See also the link contained therein.) Meanwhile, the speculations in the present HN discussions aside, WhatsApp does provide E2E encryption, so – from this POV – is orders of magnitude more secure.