5 ms·
It was audited, found to have some serious flaws[0], then those were rectified. Most people dislike Telegram because: A) It takes away from Signals market sha
by dijit 1y ago
It was audited, found to have some serious flaws[0], then those were rectified.
Most people dislike Telegram because:
A) It takes away from Signals market share
B) They don't enable E2EE by default
C) They're owned by Pavel Durov, the Russian Zuckerberg.
I am aware that it's an unpopular opinion, but the FUD spread against Telegram and the hagiographies of Signal make me think something weird is going on.
Telegram has third party clients, so you can just roll your own client that runs another encryption on top if you want, like Pidgin used to do with OTR.
[0]: https://mtpsym.github.io https://mtpsym.github.io
- hiimkeks 1y agoD) They don't enable E2EE for groups at all E) (I believe) don't enable E2EE with more than one device
- dijit 1y agoD) True aside from group calls afaik E) Neither does Whatsapp/Signal; they rely on a backdoor interface to your phone to send messages.
- tptacek 1y agoSignal very definitely does multiparty end-to-end secure messaging.
- dijit 1y agoWeird, every time I mention Signal on HN tptacek responds. But I'm having trouble discerning what you mean. Either you're saying group chats are encrypted E2EE - which, I never claimed. Or, you're mentioning that you can have multiple phones/devices on the same account, which doesn't work the last time I checked.
- mahemm 1y agoYou replied to a claim that Telegram doesn't do E2EE for groups saying 'Neither does Whatsapp/Signal'. That's wrong as `tptacek noted. If you meant something else, that wasn't clear.
- dijit 1y ago> E) (I believe) don't enable E2EE with more than one device my response was: > E) Neither does Signal/Whatsapp. The thread of the "E" topic is relevant here, i'm not claiming that Signal/Whatsapp support (or do not support) encryption for group chats. Sorry that it wasn't clear, I thought referring to them directly by letter would make it easier to differentiate.
- rockskon 1y agoIt does work. How do you think Signal desktop works?
- dijit 1y agoI thought it worked the same as Whatsapp, whereby there's a sort of backdoor connection to the app running on your phone to send messages. However, after doing a smidge more research it seems like somehow Signal is sharing it's key with the desktop app and only syncing history of messages directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15596980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15596980 I'm not 100% sure how it works as the server is fake-open-source and not actual open-source.
- porridgeraisin 1y agoWhatsapp doesn't need a connection to your phone anymore either. It used to be the case until a few years ago though.
- fsflover 1y agoE) Yet it works fine on Matrix.
- skeledrew 1y agoI've tried to use Matrix a few times and eventually end up leaving. The idea is good, but it's just missing so many nice features that it kinda isn't worth the pain. Features that Telegram just keeps dropping like candy.
- the_gipsy 1y agoToo much candy is unhealthy.
- skeledrew 1y agoYeah that's why I don't have too much of it. But it's nice to know it's there so I can choose to indulge.
- fsflover 1y agoYour complains are quite vague. It seems to be working fine for me.
- skeledrew 1y agoJust got inspired to try it again after not touching it for at least a year. I login with Element and am hit with a notification to verify my session with another device to access my encrypted history. I have no other sessions. Does this mean I've irrevocably lost access to said data? This is unacceptable if I'm to use this service regularly; I'd rather have encryption off by default so I opt into the potential loss of data, instead of having to remember to opt out. The only really nice thing so far compared to Telegram is my account still exists with the chats I'd joined, while Telegram allows a year maximum inactivity before it totally deletes an account.
- crtasm 1y agoSignal desktop can send & receive messages while your phone is off, so that doesn't seem correct.
- dijit 1y agoOh, hey, TIL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15596980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15596980 Wonder how that works then? Weird.
- fsflover 1y agoF) They don't allow E2EE on GNU/Linux, including phones and desktop.
- codedokode 1y agoF) They added a third-party verification so that Russian authorities can add an "A+" mark to channels who are complying with the new law and are registered (social network channels/blogs with more than 10K subscribers must be registered with the government now and have the owner identified).
- tptacek 1y agoI like how you sandwiched "the encryption story is bad" between two irrelevant social claims.
- s17n 1y agoPeople in the US prefer Signal over Telegram because Signal was created by people who took security seriously, and Telegram wasn't. People outside the US prefer telegram because they assume that Signal is probably compromised, or at least highly vulnerable to compromise, by US intelligence - they trust Pavel Durov's history of expropriation and arrest more than they trust some nerds who claim that our product is secure.
- BoredPositron 1y agoI mean Durov is going down the deep end in the last few weeks. Messaging all Telegram user with an Emergency feature with a doomer manifest. https://t.me/durov/452 https://t.me/durov/452
- asacrowflies 1y agoSeems pretty cognizant of the modd of entire HN front page past few weeks honestly
- BoredPositron 1y agoI don't care I didn't subscribe to anything from him. I'd rather take a Coldplay album than political opinions.
- ur-whale 1y ago> with a doomer manifest Can you point at anything in his message that's not factually correct?
- simion314 1y ago>Can you point at anything in his message that's not factually correct? He also got involved in Romanian and Moldovan elections, by sending a message to target users in the day of the elections( when doing campaign is illegal) with claims he presented no evidence for, basically the bastard works for Ruzzia, he might be forced to but the facts do not lie.
- skeledrew 1y agoIt's not about the content IMO; it's about the principle. Should not be sending content to users, unless they opted into said content being sent to them.
- a57721 1y agoOne factual thing that looks off is "the UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets". I'm not in the UK and not following closely the situation there, but "thousands", really? Genuine doubt, would love to see some evidence. Otherwise, the "doomer manifest" is OK, but the comically inflated ego of Durov is annoying, him thinking that such banal and commonplace sentiments are worth pushing as an alert message to all users, wrapping everything into announcing his birthday (that he doesn't want to celebrate, oh no).
- weberer 1y agoD) They moved to the enshittification phase and started displaying ads
- celsoazevedo 1y agoAs someone that uses Telegram almost every day, the sad true is that most messages are not private. Most people simply don't use "secure chats". Not only it's not the default, but encrypted chats also don't work across devices. So it shouldn't be a surprise that Signal users speak against Telegram. It's simply not private for most people. It's like recommending using Facebook Messenger (pre-E2EE)... privacy minded people won't do that. Signal itself is criticised by other more privacy minded users because it requires a phone number. Signal doesn't have the best call quality (voice/video) especially on slow connections, sending media can be a pain in the rear, their desktop client is way too simple, they move slowly, etc. Telegram beats them in almost everything, but not privacy... Between having to trust Durov forever with our texts and system that uses e2ee by default and may or may not (no proof) have some flaw, I think most people that want privacy will use the option that uses e2ee for everything.