3 ms·

So the entire argument for "Telegram isn’t a secure messenger, full stop." is that E2EE is opt-in? If that's all there is to it, then the opinion is rather wea

by yreg 2y ago

So the entire argument for "Telegram isn’t a secure messenger, full stop." is that E2EE is opt-in? If that's all there is to it, then the opinion is rather weak. edit: maybe post a comment in addition to pressing the downbutton. I'm curious what's so problematic about what I've said.

akie 2y ago
Defaults are important because (very) many people don't change them.
- snvzz 2y ago
  Most.
tifik 2y ago
It's not just opt-in, it's a non-default option you have to actively seek out and enable with every new conversation you start. So yes, by default, without additional steps taken, telegram is not e2e encrypted.
- yreg 2y ago
  "Non-default option" is exactly what "opt-in" means, no?
  - FabHK 2y ago
    You can opt in to something and then have it enabled by default. Not so with e2ee in Telegram.
    - yreg 2y ago
      Ah, I see.
FabHK 2y ago
The non-standard crypto was also problematic, at least initially. Furthermore, as outlined, the claims on reproducible builds vis-a-vis Signal are debatable - both provide them on Android, neither satisfactorily on iOS.
Stagnant 2y ago
I'd guess telegram can be secure if used correctly but the fact that their desktop client doesn't support secret chats at all feels weird. It has been one of the most requested features but they seem to have no interest in implementing it and have closed the issue on github.