641–649 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an unofficial FOSS version. I'm not sure if it is feature complete, secure, etc. https://github.com/Telegram-FOSS-Team/Telegram-FOSS
It is. It's the official app with misfeature removed.
>This is an unofficial, FOSS-friendly fork of the original Telegram App for Android.
They just keep on bugging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, really. You don't even argue against and yet I just did. Can we please stop confusing privacy and anonymity? Your claims about Telegram being bad for privacy are baseless. Your concerns about messages is valid but it in no way compromises privacy because: 1. No telegram employee can read any messages. They use distributed key generation to encrypt data on servers which means no single server has access to decr…
> 1. No telegram employee can read any messages. They use distributed key generation to encrypt data on servers which means no single server has access to decryption keys and all the servers are in different jurisdictions. This is wrong. First, reported messages (via id) are read by employees. Second, regardless of your claims, Telegram can easily write a service which has access to plain text messages. > 2. They do…
These are again baseless claims. If you think MTProto 2.0, an encryption algorithm that has been audited multiple times by independent researchers is 'bad encryption', I'd like for you to prove it. Obviously, if you can prove it's bad, you could let Telegram know and win a bounty.
> How about you prove your claims? I hardly can bring them to justice when even the police doesn't have immediate access to them.
The burden of proof is not me as I did not make any claims, I simply restated what's on the Telegram website.
Even the FBI, Iran or Russian government couldn't bribe them so I do trust Telegram to not backdown on their statement and philosophy about not selling or using userdata for profit. https://twitter.com/durov/status/912812889236475904
> Second, regardless of your claims, Telegram can easily write a service which has access to plain text messages.
You do know even Signal could add a keylogger service to read message content right? I don't suppose their Google Play Store version has reproducible builds. See how easily arguments like these break down? You can almost assume anything and claim almost anything. As I said, these are baseless claims and assumptions. I'm only interested in the objective truth at the moment, not assumptions or guesses.
> Since when is "bad for privacy" a reason for suing?
You're suggesting Telegram's privacy policy is in direct violation of their privacy practices which is illegal. This is a huge claim, if you can prove it you should sue them, I'd honestly do that if I were you.
> I didn't, did I? please explain
Privacy is about choosing what to share, not about sharing nothing. You seem to lie more on the anonymity side of the argument than privacy rights. You're fighting for anonymity, not privacy if you claim malicious intent on Telegram's part because as I showed earlier, their privacy practices and security are totally A OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.simplemobiletools.smsmes... ?
This is what I'm switching to. I would have suggested Textra, but when I downloaded it just now, TrackerControl told me there are a bunch of tracking libraries in it. Simple SMS Messenger, on the other hand, not only doesn't have any tracking libraries, but doesn't ask for internet access! I've used other tools in the Simple suite and I love them. Although I like using F-Droid, this app is also available on the regul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretending like Signal is the second coming of Christ and implying that Telegram and all else is insecure and for dumb idiots and may have had something to do with it
That's far from what is happening. Everyone is complaining about Signal, including me. Telegram gets a lot of shit because they prop themselves up as a privacy app but aren't. The default is that things are not encrypted. They use a proprietary encryption scheme. They store user data on their servers. These are not the marks of a privacy app.
I explained how imo Signal has burned the goodwill of a some of its early adopters. Meaning not recommending it to my friends and buying my mom an iPhone. Now there's an argument to be made that it's not very smart to dismiss the app, but that's what happened.
I'd be very surprised if they manage to salvage its image at this point
> We have now reached the point where SMS support no longer makes sense. What a laughable, out of touch suggestion. Did anyone at Signal actually ask the community what they thought about removing SMS support? Seriously, this decision is going to kill Signal app. It will halt the majority of growth as evangelists such as myself can no longer recommend it with a straight face. Signal is supposed to enhance the messagi…
Personally I think supporting SMS is what's "out of touch". It's a legacy system that a huge chunk of their users won't have ever used in the app except possibly accidentally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic slightly, but it amazes me how much SMS is used in outside my country (maybe just US?). I literally never SMS any personal contacts, usually WhatsApp. Even business stuff, sometimes initial contact may be SMS and then could often move to WhatsApp. I use signal with a small circle of friends, but no one I know uses SMS anymore.
I have WhatsApp installed for two different group chats, Google Chat for another couple of group chats, but apart from that SMS is the standard here (which means opportunistically iMessage / Signal). I'm in Australia, where SMS typically have no per-message cost (the only thing that's charged per use on most mobile plans here is data and international calls).
So when apps like viber, WhatsApp, etc came on the scene, people jumped on them quickly and completely stopped texting.
This was before they even had voice calling.
With voice calling, it is also popular, as you can call someone irrespective of what country they are in and not worry about roaming or international call charges (even though in the EU now we do not have roaming charges anymore).
Some people even use WhatsApp for normal calls over normal cellular calls!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's false: Telegram doesn't have access to secret chats.
it's not false In reality almost no one bothers with secret chats (no syncing between devices, no backup and no group chat possible). Instead everything is stored online without E2E encryption, i.e. perfectly readable for the service provider.
Sorry, but "everything" != "almost everything". So it's false that "Telegram has access to everything you do and say".