Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

telegram.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 299 posts

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#261

Post by vram22 »

detaro wrote: post #225
vram22 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>interleaving got enabled on my ADSL What is interleaving in this context?

Multiple data frames are interleaved and transmitted together. Good for error tolerance, since bursty noise doesn't wipe out a complete frame, but small parts of multiple ones, which then can individually be fixed by their Reed-Solomon error correction codes. But it adds latency, since the sender has to collect data from multiple frames to combine, and the receiver has to receive the entire block before it can be dec…

Thanks.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#262

Post by ghughes »

Animats wrote: post #213

The emoji out of band authentication is cool, but probably annoying. You have to read those emoji by voice to the other end, so they can check them. That could be a pain if the emoji are chosen randomly from the 2600 available emoji. The idea comes from the STU-3 secure phone, where there was a 2-digit number display to be read back by voice. It's one of the ways to detect a man-in-the-middle attack. If there's a MIT…

It's gimmicky. I prefer Signal's numeric encoding - easy to read aloud with no room for ambiguity.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#263

Post by mgamache »

l1ambda wrote: post #217
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #121

I will definitely try this because I have trouble with all other voice chat services including Skype, WhatsApp and Hangouts. Often one of those three will work but not always. But the most annoying problem with any internet voice chat is not so much the quality but the latency. Landline phones have noticeably lower voice quality but one can still enjoy a conversation perfectly well. High latency, on the other hand, a…

The Opus codec ( http://opus-codec.org/comparison/ ) can enable very low latency audio. 26.5 ms algorithmic delay (the time it takes to go through the algorithm) by default, but can be set to a very impressive 5ms. Digital audio can't achieve the near no-latency analog POTS has, but it can get pretty darn close e.g. if Opus is used in the very low latency mode. I believe Mumble and maybe TeamSpeak let you choose the…

I think you can get < 5ms latency with Opus depending on the sample rate.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#264

Post by snackai »

raarts wrote: post #224

No app wil ever accomplish consistent good voice quality over the internet. Ever. For that it's too much of an unreliable network. You may try some calls over Signal, think Hey! This works well! until you hit a moment where the route between endpoints is flaky, attribute it to Signal while using another app for that same call at that particular point in time would have given the same result. Only when QoS will be hon…

You are dumb if you really believe this. Technology always proves people wrong. Just wait for it.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#265

Post by corford »

adamheins wrote: post #175
pixl97 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I always see these services talking about "crystal clear quality", but never latency, which is a shame. Maybe there is simply nothing they can do about it. I've noticed latency get worse and worse on the Internet since I started using it in the 90s and nobody seems to talk about it. Well, the first problem at home is likely your wireless. Live in an apartment and you can pick up 30 other routers in your wifi search.…

I don't know much about the different router brands and models. Which would you consider to be some of the good ones?

Draytek are a good choice at the consumer level.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#266

Post by nickpsecurity »

doctorshady wrote: post #233
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISDN was 64kbps pet channel though - and to my knowledge did not use a wideband voice codec by default (or at least didn't mandate all ISDN receivers support wideband audio). Lots of people who had ISDN kit plugged their old POTS phones into their TAs anyway.

ISDN is actually used quite a bit in niche markets in the states. For studios, typically you'll see a couple B-channels bonded to give someone 128K MP3 or AAC. At a bare minimum, 64 kbps/16khz g.722 is used. I worked in a newsroom a few years ago where I frequently had to record a weather guy from a distant area who used this.

Used in STE units for secure communication as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Terminal_Equipment

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#267

Post by t3ra »

jaflo wrote: post #188
unicornporn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're sitting on troves of data. Extremely few use the E2E encrypted "secure chat" feature (mainly because it isn't default, but also because it doesn't sync between devices) and all the chat logs and data are stored on their servers (and are readable by Telegram). They also store your address book on their servers. I'm sure they will find ways monetize this. Data is the "new gold", as they say[1]... [1] https://ww…

Their FAQ[1] states: Q: Will you have ads? Or sell my data? Or steal my beloved and enslave my children? No. So I don't think they will make money by selling data. [1] https://telegram.org/faq#q-will-you-have-ads-or-sell-my-data...

I remember them mention about making a good messaging app without calling fluff (can't exactly point to which blog/faq)

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#268

Post by pigeons »

unicornporn wrote: post #25
najati83 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your concerns but the protocol is open. https://core.telegram.org/mtproto All official clients are open source so you can fork them or create a new one from scratch.

But NOBODY I know actually uses the secure chat feature — mainly because it isn't default, but also because it doesn't sync between devices.

And its not even available, at least on the linux desktop version.

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#269

Post by Johnny_Brahms »

idanoeman wrote: post #250
Johnny_Brahms wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then again so could Telegram. It's a rather fruitless discussion.

No it's not. The fruit is: use a sideloaded Signal which you built yourself if you really need to be secure. If you're not, Signal is still better than Telegram or Whatsapp.

Well, that I agree on, but that wasn't the discussion I was having :)

Re: Voice Calls: Secure, Crystal-Clear, AI-Powered

#270

Post by Arathorn »

xemoka wrote: post #153
Arathorn wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message isn't encrypted for each device; the message is encrypted once for the room, as part of a 'session' of messages - and then the key data for that session is shared with the devices who are allowed to read it. Thus you can share old session key data with other devices if you want, meaning that new devices /can/ see old messages, although we're still working through the UX for that. (Currently the only way t…

Thanks—so there's another layer of encryption over the ever changing (Megolm) key that encrypts the room, if I understand this. Looks like I simplified too much.

Sort of. Just to clerify: the first layer (Olm) provides a secure channel between pairs of devices, used mainly to share Megolm encryption state between them.

The second layer (Megolm) encrypts each sent message once per room, using a ratchet described by session key data. The session key data is shared 1:1 between the appropriate devices (past and future) over Olm.

Post reply on HN