It's beyond me how anyone can trust a Russian messenger. It's impossible to do anything in Russia without KGB involvement, let alone to run a secure messenger. Had the KGB not had access to Telegram data, Durov would have be long gone like Nemtsov, Politkovskaya, and others.
Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
131–140 of 151 posts
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…
>2) e2e encrypted As you haven't mentioned it: Supporting e2ee isn't enough. It must be the default, else the non-technically inclined will often end up not using e2ee. >As much as I dislike to admit it, this leaves Matrix, and nothing else. I'm in the same position. Never been a fan, but I have to support it, because that's really the only option, even if bloated. I also tried running a server (synapse) with similar…
About XMPP, it's a protocol. So it's possible for there to be a client with e2e by default right? And the problem is there is no reasonable client like that right now, right?
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…
> This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups Your own link mentions "Size limit of 1000", where did you see 150? To be fair that's for new groups, maybe the limit used to be lower. Or do you mean that in practice it's not usable beyond 150 people?
3 days ago it was 150, I swear.
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements: 1) option for large groups (around 250) This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr... 2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms. 3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice…
How about email? Seriously... setting up your own email server. All users use a web client (there are tonnes out there, with the option of using thicker clients). Bots can be used to organise the groups, add new users, etc.
I recommended it heavily, got dismissed immediately.
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups Your own link mentions "Size limit of 1000", where did you see 150? To be fair that's for new groups, maybe the limit used to be lower. Or do you mean that in practice it's not usable beyond 150 people?
3 days ago it was 150, I swear.
Well, it seems to be time to revisit your decision then!
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Almost no one is going to set up a dedicated local server for all of his conversations 85000 Prosody servers disagree to some level :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25713679
in other words, almost no one compared to at least 2 billion potential users.
> at least 2 billion potential users.
I know people tend to dream big, but... come on.
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post is old. Telegram now has auto delete for chats for e2e chats and even manual delete including deleting your partners messages if you want to (on both sides - obviously not in groups). So yes the quick chat that you dont want to be archived anywhere can be deleted quickly and easily. Ofc this does not prevent the other side from storing it in advance but its rather unlikely and It would no longer be poss…
>manual delete including deleting your partners messages if you want to (on both sides - obviously not in groups You can delete other people's messages for everyone in the chat if you're an admin of the group.
Yes, obviously you can as admin but that's just the admin power. You can also delete/edit your own messages in groups but they will be visible in the admin log for 2 days. So these 2 features are not meant to remove your messages from being stored/archived. Its just the normal moderation feature of group chats.
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#138> 1) Users don’t want to lose their entire message history when they lose/change their phones so apps of this kind never become massively popular. I think this is a key point to consider for Signal and the other "good" messengers - there's ways to do secure backups, it just needs to be implemented so well that you won't miss the convenience of Google Drive backups. I tend to fall back on anecdotes a lot, but the firs…
Last time I checked WhatsApp deleted media older than several months. Moreover, there was no way to re-download that media from the cloud, I had to ask counterpart to re-send me the file (it was a work document).
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#139People complain here on HN that public or semi-public telegram groups are not e2e encrypted. Yes, your HN comment isn't either. And there is no point in encrypting it if its mean to be read by others. Telegram isn't just a messenger. Its a social media like platform with millions of groups and channels you can find trough telegram or they are linked form other places. Would there be a use case for a fully private e2e…
this. the endless complaints about telegram not being E2EE by default always blow my mind. can we have a discussion about other more serious issues with Telegram, if there are any?
Re: Why Isn’t Telegram End-to-End Encrypted by Default (2017)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you do your research before posting statements like these? They hurt a messenger that has done a great deal of good for protestors and other political rebels. If I take the kindest interpretation of your statements, they are factually wrong in whole but true in part. That is, the Telegram server code is closed source, yes. But Telegram clients and the protocols they use to "speak" are all either open source or do…
I do not like it (I prefer Matrix, where accounts are not tied to phone lines), but I am ok with Signal, as it is open source, it is always e2ee and using it really offers privacy. Telegram, on the other hand, is not open source, nor does it do e2ee by default. Having to explicitly select "new secret chat" ultimately means the non-technical inclined can and will use it wrong, getting no privacy whatsoever. Therefore,…
Good thing. Signal coming up with usernames