431–440 of 878 posts
This seems like the Kim Dotcom situation again. Why are these service providers being punished for what their users do? Specifically, these service providers? Because Google, Discord, Reddit, etc. all contain some amount of CSAM (and other illegal content), yet I don't see Pichai, Citron, or Huffman getting indicted for anything. Hell, then there's the actual infrastructure providers too. This seems like a slippery s…
Watch his interview with Tucker Carlson and you’ll see. He doesn’t acquiesce to government requests for moderation control, censorship, and sharing private user data so they target him. He refuses to implement backdoors as well. In stark contrast to western social media companies.
Telegram is genuinely the best general communication platform I have ever used, by far. I really hope he has a good lawyer and this doesn't end up getting essentially murdered for creating it. When you create something that is objectively great, everyone will use it - including bad actors.
Video and Audio calls are hit and miss. The history and search are not reliable. The interface is not really suited for big group chats... I could go on and on.
It's perfectly fine for a few thousand people
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like other platforms without E2EE are managing to do that without any issues whatsoever (e.g. Discord)
discord has hundreds of content moderators, telegram is made by a team of 30 people i don’t think messaging startups should be required to employ hundreds of people to read messages
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a popular lie, Telegram uses the MTProto 2.0 Cloud algorithm for non-secret chats, which is audited and verified by multiple independent parties. For example WhatsApp claims it uses EE2E encrypted chats, how ever these claims are unverified and not audited. Also their chief executives are not in jail, coincidentally. You can consult these links if you want to read more about it: https://core.telegram.org/mtpro…
https://t.me/s/UkraineNow This is a Ukraine channel. You can preview it in a web browser. If Telegram can enable that functionality, then it means they have the complete capability to serve the content of the channel. Same story if they can scroll back an existing channel to new users.
You claim that only secret chats are encrypted in telegram, which is straight not true. You can pull up a link to public channel and everyone can preview the posts, that's obvious. You cannot do the same trick with group chats because they are private and encrypted using MTProto
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service isn't this the definition of "criminal lawyer"?
If you are a criminal lawyer who is providing defense, that is acceptable because everyone is entitled to to a fair trial and defense. If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior (eg. a Saul Goodman type) you absolutely will lose your Bar License and open yourself up to criminal penalties. If you are a criminal lawyer who is in a situation where your client wants you to abet their crimi…
A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less. The comparisons to other providers is off base because either other providers are cooperating more when they possess actionable, unencrypted information and taking s…
ultimately this fight against unmonitored messaging is going to be a lost one for the developed world. people who want encrypted group chats will get them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize the police wiretap and get metadata from phone companies all the time, right? Not event counting Five Eyes stuff.
But why don’t they arrest them for allowing it to happen? Phone calls should be actively moderated to block customers who speak about terrorist activity.
It's not whether the platform is being used for illegal activity (all platforms are to some extent, as your facile comment shows). It's whether the operator of a platform actively avoids cooperating with LE to stop that activity once found.