Telegram is known as a privacy-focused secure messaging app because it markets itself that way. However, it is often criticized by security experts, privacy advocates, and people with common sense who can understand why its claims about being privacy-friendly don't make sense. In this brief article, I'll show you all
  • sunbeam60@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    I’m not sure they are lying. Yes, they’re not E2E but I don’t think they claim to be by default, do they?

    I’ve got a large group of friends there, since high school. We presume everything we write is available to the Russians so we never talk work details or share secrets. It would be insane otherwise.

    We’ve tried to organise a move to Signal, but honestly its client is nowhere near as polished or feature rich as Telegram.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      I’m not sure they are lying. Yes, they’re not E2E but I don’t think they claim to be by default, do they?

      they claim to be “encrypted”. if I just make a new chat it will not be encrypted. this is false advertising. furthermore this highly advertised feature has artificial limitations, like that desktop clients can’t use it. it also cannot he used with group chats. so much for being “encrypted”.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        That’s just your misunderstanding of the term. The chat is encrypted, no lies about it, it’s not end-to-end encrypted. Last time I checked they were quite explicit about that.
        So far, Telegram worked exactly as it was advertised, it’s just people for some reason have weird ideas about what words mean and how stuff should work, but that’s not on them to be honest.
        Plenty to criticize Telegram for, but lack of privacy isn’t it.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          That’s just your misunderstanding of the term. The chat is encrypted, no lies about it, it’s not end-to-end encrypted.

          I was pretty sure someone is going to bring this up! “It uses HTTPS so its Encrypted™, you are just too dumb to comprehend it!”

          well, yes, point me to a chat service that is not encrypted on the wire nowadays. I still think it is false advertising, because their clear intention is to make the user think their service is somehow more secure than others, while that is not the case. why would you advertise privacy and encryption, if not for arguing that you the provider cant read messages?
          Ironically the owner of telegram is repeatedly posting on his channel about how much more secure telegram is over whatsapp, which is an actual end to end encrypted messaging app (but with other problems, like questionable key handling)

          • Nalivai@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            You know, if you end-to-end encrypted, but mishandle keys, it’s actually demonstrably worse than if you client-to-server encrypted but there was no confirmed cases of anything leaked.
            Nobody is misleading you because you have deeply held ideas on what words should mean.

            • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              0·
              1 month ago

              Nobody is misleading you because you have deeply held ideas on what words should mean.

              if your definition of encrypted means telegram is an encrypted messenger, than “encrypted” is literally nothing more than a meaningless buzzword, since all messaging services do some kind of encryption.

              • Nalivai@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                1 month ago

                My definition of “encrypted” means that something is encrypted. You know, using cryptography.
                Your definition of encrypted means that something is end-to-end encrypted, with only two corresponding people having keys. And we actually have a term for that, it’s end-to-end encryption.
                I understand where you’re coming from, but only one of us using this word correctly.

                • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  0·
                  21 days ago

                  what do you think, are those companies committing fraud that sell water with “extra H2O”, or with “more ions”, just to put themselves in a better light?

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Signal (assuming you live in a country that hasn’t blacklisted them for refusing to install backdoors).

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Signal still doesn’t support bots and is shit for bigger groups

      Good for 1-10 friends and 1on1 chats tho

        • lepinkainen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          People criticising Telegram have no idea how big some of the channels there are. They’re stupid big. Like full ass Discord server but with one channel big.

          That needs automated moderation tools - bots as well as built in tools to manage lager groups.

          Signal doesn’t do that at all. It’s a good replacement for group texts, not communities.

          And for me personally: missing first party bot support makes it a complete non-starter.

          • Coldcell@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            01·
            1 month ago

            I mean, fair enough on you opinions, but it sounds as if all you’re saying is this one particular messaging tool doesn’t fit your requirements?

            As I see it, (and I may be speculating and/or wrong), supporting bots might worsen some aspects of other users experience. If there necessitates a worsening of other users’ experience in order to support what you’d want to do, at what point should you just use a different app?

            There’s little reasoning for catering to a niche use like huge channels and bots, and tbh that sounds like a dreadful experience to me. Dev time is costly, feature creep is a killer, I don’t see lack of support for unwanted (to me) features as a negative.