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

Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

telegram.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#121

Post by busymom0 »

simias wrote: post #21
barbazoo wrote: post #4

More and more I appreciate Signal for what it is. A no nonsense (okay, stickers) messaging tool for people that know each other in real life. I hope it never changes into something "social".

I'm all for no-nonsense, but I'd qualify Signal as barebones in some regards. Two features that routinely annoy me: no way to synchronize previous messages when linking a new client, no way to change the spellchecker language in the desktop app. I want Signal to succeed but I always hesitate to recommend it because it always feels like an early beta product to me, not something ready for prime time.

> no way to synchronize previous messages when linking a new client

Isn't this because of how true end to end encryption works and Signal treating each user devices as an independent device and not "syncing"?

Here's a discussion on it:

https://community.signalusers.org/t/message-history-sync-for...

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#122

Post by afiori »

bsaul wrote: post #113
AnyTimeTraveler wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there are many cons to e2e, especially with bigger groups. I've read a lot about Signal's and Matrix's development and there are many problems that don't exist when sending data over a simple SSL connectiom to a server. For example: You have a group with 100 Members, do you encrtpy each message you send 99 times for each recipient? Not likely. So you use a send key that everyone else can decrypt. But then w…

From what i’ve read, whatsapp is doing just what youdescribed for group chat, and it’s working fine... now maybe you’re talking about groups with hundreds of people ?

telegram groups allow for thousands of users.

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#123

Post by afiori »

rakoo wrote: post #105
TheChaplain wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand. Privacy is important to me, but it's not a binary state. What I talk about to my friends, girlfriends and family are all on different "privacy levels". If the chats with my friends were disclosed, I'd probably be made a laughing stock at most but it's no big deal. My family ones would probably be most boring, and the ones with my girlfriend could be material for a soap opera, and embarrassing. But…

I have never used Telegram but not once have I ever read anyone being displeased with the experience; it's always about how it is the pinnacle of messengers. I'm a bit jealous about that because I want to experience it but I don't want to be tied to an app that doesn't do privacy by default. Privacy is definitely not binary, but to me it is a bit like using Libre software. You can't realistically expect to live on th…

I personally follow a different reasoning: I assume that using a precompiled app from X mean that you trust X. Personally I do not particularly care that whatsapp is e2e, I do not trust Facebook not to have side channels in their apps.

Something like Matrix are likely the best you can go (a federated network where bad actors are likely to get called out, I have high expectations for its future), but apart from this I consider e2e a red herring* as e2e would also need to include source code, compilation, installation, and platform. it is not a magic incantation that fixes privacy (not to talk about metadata)

we find reasonable to have not e2e emails, not e2e file sharing, not e2e phone calls. personally I care more about the long term commitment telegram has publically and repeatedly made (and the my assumption that they do not expect to be able to come out unscathed from obvious leaks)

I understand that others might want more, no problem with that, but there is so much more than just e2e encryption.

*telegram should still offer secret groups

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#124

Post by afiori »

simias wrote: post #21
barbazoo wrote: post #4

More and more I appreciate Signal for what it is. A no nonsense (okay, stickers) messaging tool for people that know each other in real life. I hope it never changes into something "social".

I'm all for no-nonsense, but I'd qualify Signal as barebones in some regards. Two features that routinely annoy me: no way to synchronize previous messages when linking a new client, no way to change the spellchecker language in the desktop app. I want Signal to succeed but I always hesitate to recommend it because it always feels like an early beta product to me, not something ready for prime time.

the reality is that signal is a secure communication app, not a messaging app. syncing old messages has unavoidable security problems and so signal chooses (as they should given their goals) not to implement it.

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#125

Post by afiori »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #88

I'd love to fully switch to Telegram - it's snappy and has a nice UI. However, video calls are low quality at the moment, and that's the one thing holding me back.

also no group video calls, a bummer for keeping in touch with family

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#126

Post by rakoo »

afiori wrote: post #123
rakoo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used Telegram but not once have I ever read anyone being displeased with the experience; it's always about how it is the pinnacle of messengers. I'm a bit jealous about that because I want to experience it but I don't want to be tied to an app that doesn't do privacy by default. Privacy is definitely not binary, but to me it is a bit like using Libre software. You can't realistically expect to live on th…

I personally follow a different reasoning: I assume that using a precompiled app from X mean that you trust X. Personally I do not particularly care that whatsapp is e2e, I do not trust Facebook not to have side channels in their apps. Something like Matrix are likely the best you can go (a federated network where bad actors are likely to get called out, I have high expectations for its future), but apart from this I…

> we find reasonable to have not e2e emails, not e2e file sharing, not e2e phone calls

That's where we disagree: I don't find those to be reasonable but I have to make do with them because that's where the current status is. That doesn't refrain me from using e2ee file sharing by default, or doing e2ee phone calls by default, only resorting to the not encrypted when I can't do otherwise.

I'm not saying that e2ee must be the target for everyone and is the solution to all problems. I'm saying that there are very few situations where e2ee blocks features, so for most use cases if it works transparently for the user, why not use it ? It's the next step after point-to-point encryption like TLS: if you can have it on at all times without inconveniences, why not use it ? Both of those make the overall situation better with no discernable downsides.

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#127

Post by afiori »

rakoo wrote: post #126
afiori wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally follow a different reasoning: I assume that using a precompiled app from X mean that you trust X. Personally I do not particularly care that whatsapp is e2e, I do not trust Facebook not to have side channels in their apps. Something like Matrix are likely the best you can go (a federated network where bad actors are likely to get called out, I have high expectations for its future), but apart from this I…

> we find reasonable to have not e2e emails, not e2e file sharing, not e2e phone calls That's where we disagree: I don't find those to be reasonable but I have to make do with them because that's where the current status is. That doesn't refrain me from using e2ee file sharing by default, or doing e2ee phone calls by default, only resorting to the not encrypted when I can't do otherwise. I'm not saying that e2ee must…

To me they have downsides, like being unable access your messages if you lose your device. I care about not losing my 6+ years of old messages even more than I care not to lose my 10+ years of emails.

Security is good, but sometimes truted third parties are "gooder", maybe we disagree on the next example but I like that the police is able to forcefully block some financial transactions, or that my bank can disable my credit card remotely.

e2ee encryption with convenience is also very likely to be broken by design,

Re: Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded Chats

#128

Post by vetinari »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #115
vetinari wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what secret chats are.

Group chats are not encrypted.

They are encrypted, but not e2e. It is a key distribution problem.

Threema solves it by scanning QR codes; for that, you need to physically meet with the other recipients, they need to bring their devices and scan each other QR codes (note that Threema still supports only one device per recipient; otherwise, the users would need to scan each other QR codes for each device).

It is not something that an average Telegram user would be willing to do.

Post reply on HN