4 ms·

Moving to telegram doesn't make sense at all if you are worried about your privacy, it's not encrypted and they have access to all of your messages, a huge dow

Moving to telegram doesn't make sense at all if you are worried about your privacy, it's not encrypted and they have access to all of your messages, a huge downgrade.

Mayora13 3y ago
Element is already better than most other Messenger Frontends. Matrix is becomming incredibly sexy. Also Element is working on element-x android and ios that is using the Matrix Rust SDK. Also matrix spaces is more elegant than telegram folders.
- jacooper 3y ago
  True but until element X is fully ready, it's not usable for the average user. Also, it's still not great on the desktop.
herbst 3y ago
A private company having apparently access to all my messages (it's not true, there is encryption) is still somewhat better than meta AND the whole US government having access to my data
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  > it's not true, there is encryption Who has the keys? What exactly is encrypted? 1-2-1 chats? Group chats? Attachments? Are metadata handed over? Dear Autumn12 don't just read the marketing material. In a real example: Apple's Cloud has a copy of most users' data as (by f...g default) when you activate an iphone it enables them all. I remember the case with that terrorist (was it the Boston Marathon guy?) that Apple wouldn't hack the device but they handed everything they had on their cloud to FBI.
  - herbst 3y ago
    Op claimed it's not encrypted. Which again is simply wrong. Other than that you'll find details about their p2p encryption here https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end if you want. I don't know what you want to say with your example, but there are dozens of examples where telegram did not give out data even thought they likely should have. It's definitely a more private choice to apple or meta
    - jacooper 3y ago
      I meant not encrypted as in not E2EE, which is true. Telegram does so many stuff to avoid saying they have the keys.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > it's not true, there is encryption Yes, but not by default, and it’s weird/custom and not properly peer-reviewed. > somewhat better than meta AND the whole US government having access to my data How do you know that that is the case for WhatsApp?
dijit 3y ago
If one entity controls: the server, the protocol and all possible clients; then you are still trusting the intermediary. Its not like its a significant difference honestly. I know people beat the E2EE drum and they definitely should: but that only makes sense if the clients are disconnected from the transport. IE: ensuring that collusion between them is less possible. Though storing things on the server is something telegram then has to secure on your behalf, it does provide a tangible UX improvement.
- literalAardvark 3y ago
  There is still a significant difference between "the company could theoretically mitm your communications with some effort" and "tech support can read your logs for the lols". Telegram is cleartext and by 2023 standards complete ass.
  - dijit 3y ago
    I think you're still attributing more effort than is actually necessary to sideline your protection from encryption. Telegram supports open source and third party clients, so if you wanted the benefits of E2EE with a popular chat network then that's a better way to go. Custom clients on the telegram network. It is best is to use something like Element/Matrix though, for sure. But if you're trading UX for convenience then materially the difference really is a lot smaller than you imply.
    - guappa 3y ago
      Let's not forget that telegram does support e2ee. And having an open source client means that you can trust it actually being e2ee much more than you can with whatsapp.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Except that they are too cool to use peer-reviewed reasonable encryption protocols. By switching their optional E2E encryption from their weird proprietary thing to the Signal protocol, Telegram could at least display some goodwill – but only making that the default would show that they actually care about their users privacy.
lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
Meanwhile WhatsApp and Signal's privacy model ensures everyone you talk to has your phone number which means they have the ability to make your device buzz at any time of the day and night. It also excludes people who do not have a phone number. On Telegram, I can be in rando messaging groups of people and have a username rather than a hard-to-change, legacy voice traffic routing number that's widely used for tracking. The only improvement is if they could get rid of the requirement that you use a phone number to sign up for these services, which is a regression from AIM, MSN, ICQ, IRC and Jabber/XMPP.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > The only improvement is if they could get rid of the requirement that you use a phone number to sign up for these services, which is a regression from AIM, MSN, ICQ, IRC and Jabber/XMPP. That would only lead to one thing: absurd amounts of spam.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Signal is working on that feature right now. And as far as I know, Telegram still requires a phone number (or some crypto nonsense) as a primary identifier and for signups. They just allow you to hide that from your contacts.
- jacooper 3y ago
  Use matrix then
  - lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
    Yup, I do. It's a great place to talk to myself and nobody else. A bunch of people I know who play video games are on Telegram. I'm pointing out that I can talk to them without sharing my phone number which I can't do on WhatsApp/Signal. Not being stalked by weirdos is a higher priority for a lot of people than anything involving spooky Edward Snowden stuff involving the NSA, FSB, GCHQ, Mossad and Five Eyes etc.
mschuster91 3y ago
> Moving to telegram doesn't make sense at all if you are worried about your privacy Depends on the threat model. If you're being in opposition to Western governments, you can be relatively sure that Telegram will stick the finger to them and not cooperate beyond occasionally shutting down public channels that promote violent terrorism and thus garner media attention.

Moving to telegram doesn't make sense at all if you are worried about your privacy, it's not encrypted and they have access to all of your messages, a huge downgrade.

Mayora13 3y ago

Element is already better than most other Messenger Frontends. Matrix is becomming incredibly sexy. Also Element is working on element-x android and ios that is using the Matrix Rust SDK. Also matrix spaces is more elegant than telegram folders.

jacooper 3y ago
True but until element X is fully ready, it's not usable for the average user. Also, it's still not great on the desktop.

herbst 3y ago

A private company having apparently access to all my messages (it's not true, there is encryption) is still somewhat better than meta AND the whole US government having access to my data

HenryBemis 3y ago
> it's not true, there is encryption Who has the keys? What exactly is encrypted? 1-2-1 chats? Group chats? Attachments? Are metadata handed over? Dear Autumn12 don't just read the marketing material. In a real example: Apple's Cloud has a copy of most users' data as (by f...g default) when you activate an iphone it enables them all. I remember the case with that terrorist (was it the Boston Marathon guy?) that Apple wouldn't hack the device but they handed everything they had on their cloud to FBI.
- herbst 3y ago
  Op claimed it's not encrypted. Which again is simply wrong. Other than that you'll find details about their p2p encryption here https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end https://core.telegram.org/api/end-to-end if you want. I don't know what you want to say with your example, but there are dozens of examples where telegram did not give out data even thought they likely should have. It's definitely a more private choice to apple or meta
  - jacooper 3y ago
    I meant not encrypted as in not E2EE, which is true. Telegram does so many stuff to avoid saying they have the keys.
lxgr 3y ago
> it's not true, there is encryption Yes, but not by default, and it’s weird/custom and not properly peer-reviewed. > somewhat better than meta AND the whole US government having access to my data How do you know that that is the case for WhatsApp?

dijit 3y ago

If one entity controls: the server, the protocol and all possible clients; then you are still trusting the intermediary. Its not like its a significant difference honestly. I know people beat the E2EE drum and they definitely should: but that only makes sense if the clients are disconnected from the transport. IE: ensuring that collusion between them is less possible. Though storing things on the server is something telegram then has to secure on your behalf, it does provide a tangible UX improvement.

literalAardvark 3y ago
There is still a significant difference between "the company could theoretically mitm your communications with some effort" and "tech support can read your logs for the lols". Telegram is cleartext and by 2023 standards complete ass.
- dijit 3y ago
  I think you're still attributing more effort than is actually necessary to sideline your protection from encryption. Telegram supports open source and third party clients, so if you wanted the benefits of E2EE with a popular chat network then that's a better way to go. Custom clients on the telegram network. It is best is to use something like Element/Matrix though, for sure. But if you're trading UX for convenience then materially the difference really is a lot smaller than you imply.
  - guappa 3y ago
    Let's not forget that telegram does support e2ee. And having an open source client means that you can trust it actually being e2ee much more than you can with whatsapp.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Except that they are too cool to use peer-reviewed reasonable encryption protocols. By switching their optional E2E encryption from their weird proprietary thing to the Signal protocol, Telegram could at least display some goodwill – but only making that the default would show that they actually care about their users privacy.

lawtalkinghuman 3y ago

Meanwhile WhatsApp and Signal's privacy model ensures everyone you talk to has your phone number which means they have the ability to make your device buzz at any time of the day and night. It also excludes people who do not have a phone number. On Telegram, I can be in rando messaging groups of people and have a username rather than a hard-to-change, legacy voice traffic routing number that's widely used for tracking. The only improvement is if they could get rid of the requirement that you use a phone number to sign up for these services, which is a regression from AIM, MSN, ICQ, IRC and Jabber/XMPP.

mschuster91 3y ago
> The only improvement is if they could get rid of the requirement that you use a phone number to sign up for these services, which is a regression from AIM, MSN, ICQ, IRC and Jabber/XMPP. That would only lead to one thing: absurd amounts of spam.
lxgr 3y ago
Signal is working on that feature right now. And as far as I know, Telegram still requires a phone number (or some crypto nonsense) as a primary identifier and for signups. They just allow you to hide that from your contacts.
jacooper 3y ago
Use matrix then
- lawtalkinghuman 3y ago
  Yup, I do. It's a great place to talk to myself and nobody else. A bunch of people I know who play video games are on Telegram. I'm pointing out that I can talk to them without sharing my phone number which I can't do on WhatsApp/Signal. Not being stalked by weirdos is a higher priority for a lot of people than anything involving spooky Edward Snowden stuff involving the NSA, FSB, GCHQ, Mossad and Five Eyes etc.

mschuster91 3y ago

> Moving to telegram doesn't make sense at all if you are worried about your privacy Depends on the threat model. If you're being in opposition to Western governments, you can be relatively sure that Telegram will stick the finger to them and not cooperate beyond occasionally shutting down public channels that promote violent terrorism and thus garner media attention.