7 ms·

Why not Telegram, it has by far the best UX of all chat apps.

by sofixa 4y ago

mritzmann 4y ago
Telegram (per default) does not have end-to-end encryption.
- d0mine 4y ago
  "Telegram is more secure than mass market messengers like WhatsApp and Line." https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram
  - devX3 4y ago
    posts "fact" about product of company factual statement is made by said company doesn't elaborate gigachad.jpg
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I don't agree with that claim. While there is no e2e encryption, the number of people that can see the chats between me and my mother has just gone from two (me and her) to 500 (all the engineers on the telegram team). Also, being based in the UAE doesn't inspire confidence on the privacy and security front... Nor the fact they promised to release yearly transparency reports and then never did so... Or the fact Der Spiegel claims they have evidence of Telegram handing over user chats to authorities despite the fact telegrams FAQ claims they have never done so...
    - bombolo 4y ago
      You can enable e2e chats. But you lose cloud sync. > Also, being based in the UAE doesn't inspire confidence on the privacy and security front... Well the 5 eyes do not inspire confidence either, and that's where whatsapp is based. And Apple has plans to automatically inform law enforcement from device scans. At least telegram client is open source so that is unlikely to happen on the client side directly.
      - rakoo 4y ago
        > You can enable e2e chats. But you lose cloud sync. You also lose talking to more than 1 person at the same time.
        gaius_baltar 4y ago
        And link previews. Groups are never secure, too. Also AFAIK Telegram has access to the plain text data from stickers so when they are downloaded by a person on a secret chat, everybody with server access can also figure a bit of the context of the conversation.
    - gaius_baltar 4y ago
      > the number of people that can see the chats between me and my mother has just gone from two (me and her) to 500 (all the engineers on the telegram team). And everyone from all companies to which Telegram will sell the data once they figure that there is a good money to be made from it. If they have the plain text data they can do whatever they want with it.
  - lima 4y ago
    The opposite is true - of all the major messengers, Telegram is the least secure. It uses a homebrew encryption scheme and does not have E2E encryption (yes, you can enable E2E for individual chats, but nobody uses it because it breaks most features). Not to mention the weird corporate structure, lack of transparency, failed crypto token launch, dishonest marketing...
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      A non-standardized, homebrew encryption scheme does not necessarily have to be worse than a standardized algorithm - even though it often is. But if implemented correctly and by someone who knows what they are doing, I'd trust a homebrew algo more than one which has been approved by the west's codebreakers for general use.
      - worewood 4y ago
        fullstop 4y ago
        The source for the clients is available. 1. https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram 2. https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/Telegram-iOS https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/Telegram-iOS 3. https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift 4. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        I feel you are unnecessarily combative in your approach. I was making a general observation on the merits of different sourced encryption algorithms. I also would like to point out how your false dichotomy leaves no legitimate position when arguing against NSA-approved encryption mechanisms for the general public. From a security perspective, I don't care if open source is solving the backdoor problem - the use of NSA-approved algorithms is the problem, not the source code availability. From a civics perspective, I find potentially insecure algorithms that can be broken into by more local governments a lot more problematic than insecure algorithms that have a backdoor for governments far removed from, and ideally antagonistic to, my own if my own government cannot read it. The government of China or Russia is unlikely to abduct me in the night to put me into a black site. My own, or their American "friends", are a lot more likely to do so. If you have a counter-argument other than another ad hominem, I'm happy to hear it.
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    "Company says they are more secure than competition" Seems legit, I see no reason whatsoever not to trust them completely at their word. No company has ever lied to anyone before after all.
  - barbariangrunge 4y ago
    “Local man is taller and braver than other men” - says local man
rglullis 4y ago
It's still centralized and still a SPOF.
Ayesh 4y ago
Yeah I don't even know if that upper post was meant to be sarcastic. Telegram, despite the security theater, is amazing UX-wise. It's such a joy to use and I see myself more and more engaging with Telegram contacts just because it's convenient in many subtle yet impactful ways.
- rglullis 4y ago
  You can improve the UX of Matrix clients. You can not make Telegram decentralized or take it out of control of one single entity.
  - mritzmann 4y ago
    > You can improve the UX of Matrix clients No. Most people can't do that (because not everyone is a software developer).
    - Spacemolte 4y ago
      I don't think he means you, or the users that needs this, but instead that it is possible to do if they are open source.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I'm always befuddled by how some people really take things so literally...
        spockz 4y ago
        Indeed. That is why I started using “one could” instead of “you can”. This prevented a lot of misunderstanding.
        uptown 4y ago
        How can you possibly expect ONE person to do all of this? /s
chagaif 4y ago
That's true, but it has some really annoying stuff and I have a specific bug as well... https://bugs.telegram.org/c/65 https://bugs.telegram.org/c/65
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Moving to another centralized service is just getting on the same wagon again. 'email' doesn't go down, that's not even a coherent concept.
- cyberlurker 4y ago
  Poor example seeing how most use gmail.com or some other centralized service for email these days or risk emails not showing up from a self host solution.
bombolo 4y ago
It has a decent desktop client that is present in linux distributions, so that automatically disqualifies it, apparently.
kornhole 4y ago
It is centralized and mostly not E2ee. It has mainly the same problems as WhatsApp.
stiltzkin 4y ago
Black and white problem, do you need to speak privately?, use Matrix or Session or trust Telegram secret chats. Telegram is great for other no privacy related stuff as bots, channels and groups.

Why not Telegram, it has by far the best UX of all chat apps.

by sofixa 4y ago

Why not Telegram, it has by far the best UX of all chat apps.

mritzmann 4y ago

Telegram (per default) does not have end-to-end encryption.

d0mine 4y ago
"Telegram is more secure than mass market messengers like WhatsApp and Line." https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-secure-is-telegram
- devX3 4y ago
  posts "fact" about product of company factual statement is made by said company doesn't elaborate gigachad.jpg
- londons_explore 4y ago
  I don't agree with that claim. While there is no e2e encryption, the number of people that can see the chats between me and my mother has just gone from two (me and her) to 500 (all the engineers on the telegram team). Also, being based in the UAE doesn't inspire confidence on the privacy and security front... Nor the fact they promised to release yearly transparency reports and then never did so... Or the fact Der Spiegel claims they have evidence of Telegram handing over user chats to authorities despite the fact telegrams FAQ claims they have never done so...
  - bombolo 4y ago
    You can enable e2e chats. But you lose cloud sync. > Also, being based in the UAE doesn't inspire confidence on the privacy and security front... Well the 5 eyes do not inspire confidence either, and that's where whatsapp is based. And Apple has plans to automatically inform law enforcement from device scans. At least telegram client is open source so that is unlikely to happen on the client side directly.
    - rakoo 4y ago
      > You can enable e2e chats. But you lose cloud sync. You also lose talking to more than 1 person at the same time.
      - gaius_baltar 4y ago
        And link previews. Groups are never secure, too. Also AFAIK Telegram has access to the plain text data from stickers so when they are downloaded by a person on a secret chat, everybody with server access can also figure a bit of the context of the conversation.
  - gaius_baltar 4y ago
    > the number of people that can see the chats between me and my mother has just gone from two (me and her) to 500 (all the engineers on the telegram team). And everyone from all companies to which Telegram will sell the data once they figure that there is a good money to be made from it. If they have the plain text data they can do whatever they want with it.
- lima 4y ago
  The opposite is true - of all the major messengers, Telegram is the least secure. It uses a homebrew encryption scheme and does not have E2E encryption (yes, you can enable E2E for individual chats, but nobody uses it because it breaks most features). Not to mention the weird corporate structure, lack of transparency, failed crypto token launch, dishonest marketing...
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    A non-standardized, homebrew encryption scheme does not necessarily have to be worse than a standardized algorithm - even though it often is. But if implemented correctly and by someone who knows what they are doing, I'd trust a homebrew algo more than one which has been approved by the west's codebreakers for general use.
    - worewood 4y ago
      - fullstop 4y ago
        The source for the clients is available. 1. https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram 2. https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/Telegram-iOS https://github.com/TelegramMessenger/Telegram-iOS 3. https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift 4. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        I feel you are unnecessarily combative in your approach. I was making a general observation on the merits of different sourced encryption algorithms. I also would like to point out how your false dichotomy leaves no legitimate position when arguing against NSA-approved encryption mechanisms for the general public. From a security perspective, I don't care if open source is solving the backdoor problem - the use of NSA-approved algorithms is the problem, not the source code availability. From a civics perspective, I find potentially insecure algorithms that can be broken into by more local governments a lot more problematic than insecure algorithms that have a backdoor for governments far removed from, and ideally antagonistic to, my own if my own government cannot read it. The government of China or Russia is unlikely to abduct me in the night to put me into a black site. My own, or their American "friends", are a lot more likely to do so. If you have a counter-argument other than another ad hominem, I'm happy to hear it.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  "Company says they are more secure than competition" Seems legit, I see no reason whatsoever not to trust them completely at their word. No company has ever lied to anyone before after all.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  “Local man is taller and braver than other men” - says local man

rglullis 4y ago

It's still centralized and still a SPOF.

Ayesh 4y ago

Yeah I don't even know if that upper post was meant to be sarcastic. Telegram, despite the security theater, is amazing UX-wise. It's such a joy to use and I see myself more and more engaging with Telegram contacts just because it's convenient in many subtle yet impactful ways.

rglullis 4y ago
You can improve the UX of Matrix clients. You can not make Telegram decentralized or take it out of control of one single entity.
- mritzmann 4y ago
  > You can improve the UX of Matrix clients No. Most people can't do that (because not everyone is a software developer).
  - Spacemolte 4y ago
    I don't think he means you, or the users that needs this, but instead that it is possible to do if they are open source.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      I'm always befuddled by how some people really take things so literally...
      - spockz 4y ago
        Indeed. That is why I started using “one could” instead of “you can”. This prevented a lot of misunderstanding.
        uptown 4y ago
        How can you possibly expect ONE person to do all of this? /s

chagaif 4y ago

That's true, but it has some really annoying stuff and I have a specific bug as well... https://bugs.telegram.org/c/65 https://bugs.telegram.org/c/65

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Moving to another centralized service is just getting on the same wagon again. 'email' doesn't go down, that's not even a coherent concept.

cyberlurker 4y ago
Poor example seeing how most use gmail.com or some other centralized service for email these days or risk emails not showing up from a self host solution.

bombolo 4y ago

It has a decent desktop client that is present in linux distributions, so that automatically disqualifies it, apparently.

kornhole 4y ago

It is centralized and mostly not E2ee. It has mainly the same problems as WhatsApp.

stiltzkin 4y ago

Black and white problem, do you need to speak privately?, use Matrix or Session or trust Telegram secret chats. Telegram is great for other no privacy related stuff as bots, channels and groups.