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

Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#191

Post by zzzcpan »

checktheorder wrote: post #190
damnyou wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your point is that only people with a Mossad threat model should use Signal, I wholeheartedly agree.

Oh, please. If Mossad really wants my messages, they're not going to give up at the "Oh no, he uses Signal!" step. They're going to go full knee-wrench if they have to. And considering they have a habit of forging my country's passports, don't pretend that me living in another country is a barrier to that. The same goes for my country's government. Our laws are chock-full of "throw him in jail until he gives up the p…

> properly-implemented and proven-secure

You don't seem to realize this, but your argument is essentially "I trust Signal more", a purely authoritative one. And I don't think there even exists a threat model where anything that Signal offers over competition is important, especially given their obsession with control.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#192

Post by genroku »

mattnguyen wrote: post #120

A growing number of people and organizations are starting to choose Telegram over Slack. This became prevalent in the blockchain space where pretty much everyone prefers Telegram to other messaging apps. OTC brokers, quant funds, and the largest exchanges use Telegram in some capacity, some almost exclusively. Since the official Telegram clients are open source and the org encourages open competition between third pa…

Would be interesting if Telegram can merge with Keybase for organizations and teams platform to compete with Slack.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#193

Post by checktheorder »

zzzcpan wrote: post #191
checktheorder wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, please. If Mossad really wants my messages, they're not going to give up at the "Oh no, he uses Signal!" step. They're going to go full knee-wrench if they have to. And considering they have a habit of forging my country's passports, don't pretend that me living in another country is a barrier to that. The same goes for my country's government. Our laws are chock-full of "throw him in jail until he gives up the p…

> properly-implemented and proven-secure You don't seem to realize this, but your argument is essentially "I trust Signal more", a purely authoritative one. And I don't think there even exists a threat model where anything that Signal offers over competition is important, especially given their obsession with control.

I'm glad you picked up on that, because yes, I DO trust Signal more than Telegram. I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons. If you want to misinterpret that as "appeal to authority", then go nuts. But frankly, your own argument reeks of government-friendly "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" nonsense.

So long as Telegram's developers refuse to implement mandatory-and-default end-to-end-encryption with a properly audited protocol and implementation in all clients, I will not use it. And I will discourage friends and family from using it.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#194

Post by zzzcpan »

checktheorder wrote: post #193
zzzcpan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> properly-implemented and proven-secure You don't seem to realize this, but your argument is essentially "I trust Signal more", a purely authoritative one. And I don't think there even exists a threat model where anything that Signal offers over competition is important, especially given their obsession with control.

I'm glad you picked up on that, because yes, I DO trust Signal more than Telegram. I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons. If you want to misinterpret that as "appeal to authority", then go nuts. But frankly, your own argument reeks of government-friendly "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" nonsense. So long as Telegram's developers refuse to implement mandato…

> I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons.

Except there are no solid technical reasons, just trust and distrust, because security people really love to claim authority on how "solid" security things are. The last people on earth you should ask about security are those claiming authority on these issues.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#195

Post by ericd »

eitland wrote: post #161
ericd wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean that they're encrypted, but not E2E? That means the chats are MITM'd by the company, no? If you're talking about HTTPS, that's an incredibly low bar.

As far as I understand it it means keys goes one way, messages another way, so that no single jurisdiction can get hold of anyones messages by seizing the servers. Warning: the above is just my very simplified explanation of my understanding of what I read a while ago. Edit: again, this is based on something I read a while ago, but I think Gmail has or had a similar system where you have to have access to two differe…

Ah interesting, thanks very much for explaining it.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#196

Post by pyt »

sschueller wrote: post #175
saagarjha wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All clients are fully open source They’re literally not. The distributed apps update every couple of weeks or even more often while the source they push lags months behind, if it’s even what’s being used to build those binaries.

This package [1] on f-droid is built directly of the source on github [2]. Even if the source is old so is the package. F-droid compiles this package not telegram. I wrote the peertube client Throium which is also available on f-droid [3]. When I Tag a new release on github, f-droid will build the package automatically and publish it the next day. I do not build the packages for f-droid. [1] https://f-droid.org/en/pa…

I gave up tracking the delay a while ago but I think the macOS and iOS packages were lagging by six months at one point. Heck, even now the last commit with actual code [1] is over two months old yet the macOS app updated two days ago for me.

Uncommented code is dumped into the GitHub repo every couple of months after enough people complain. That's not what I would call open source.

[1] https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/commits/master

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#197

Post by checktheorder »

zzzcpan wrote: post #194
checktheorder wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you picked up on that, because yes, I DO trust Signal more than Telegram. I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons. If you want to misinterpret that as "appeal to authority", then go nuts. But frankly, your own argument reeks of government-friendly "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" nonsense. So long as Telegram's developers refuse to implement mandato…

> I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons. Except there are no solid technical reasons, just trust and distrust, because security people really love to claim authority on how "solid" security things are. The last people on earth you should ask about security are those claiming authority on these issues.

This is incoherent FUD.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#198

Post by bigwavedave »

interfixus wrote: post #136
bigwavedave wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean "nark"? "Snark" is when you use humor to pick at someone or something. "Narking" is being a tattle-tale.

Yes, that was a late-night typo. Interested, although not surprised, to see my factually indisputable comment getting massively downvoted.

I've never understood the culture with that on HN. I probably never will.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#199

Post by zzzcpan »

checktheorder wrote: post #197
zzzcpan wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I trust Signal and distrust Telegram for many solid technical reasons. Except there are no solid technical reasons, just trust and distrust, because security people really love to claim authority on how "solid" security things are. The last people on earth you should ask about security are those claiming authority on these issues.

This is incoherent FUD.

It's not. I'm just not going to accept authoritative arguments on security, sorry. If you have actual technical reasons, please give them. If you don't, that's fine too.

Re: Telegram introduces feature to prevent users from texting too often in a group

#200

Post by interfixus »

interfixus wrote: post #137
jjeaff wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't plead. It asks one time. At least on Android. I said no and it has never asked me again.

It asked me a number of times. And it never warned that this was a oneway process.

Idle curiosity: The above is a report of fact as observed by me. It's not really up for discussion - this is what happened. Could someone for our edification explain a bit about the reasoning behing their downvotes? Other than my having sinned in the church of moxie and his true disciple tptacek.
Post reply on HN