161–170 of 183 posts
Am I missing something here? This just looks like Zoom or Teams or any of the other video calling apps that have been running the world for the past year. What's so special about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not about default being certain function off. This is about that one functionality being mutually exclusive with other functionality. If you enable E2EE, you disable cloud sync/history, multi-device use, message forwarding, etc. In normal use, users want the latter and if they need the secret chat, it is available. In your example with Adblock Plus, there was no trade-off (to the user; there obviously was for…
> This is about that one functionality being mutually exclusive with other functionality. That is a design decision made by Telegram. My e2ee Signal and Matrix groups sync just fine across devices, preserve message history, allow message forwarding, etc. Not enabeling those features is a nudge against using the e2ee-feature. Facebook Messenger does the same by crippling their encrypted chat experience. The reason mos…
Signal does it relatively right; but the nuances are difficult to explain. Even here, on HN, it is difficult to explain the Telegram's tradeoffs, how would you explain that to common users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but where are you getting that number from? They said "group chats", not "massive group chats". I would certainly want group chats with less than 20 people to be end-to-end encrypted, if it were possible. I think a decent compromise would be just enabling it by default for private group chats, since it'd be costly and pretty pointless for public ones.
There is no point in encrypting the content of these public groups if anyone can just join and get access.
There's no point to encrypting public group chats. There's a ton of point to encrypting private group chats. They should support it for private chats and it should be the default. Or, better, there should be no way to disable it, even.
To me Telegram feels like the red corner district of a city. I simply don't feel like I can trust it, there's something very shady about it. I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram reads those exclusive Bitcoin whale groups and uses that insider info. Group chats are not end to end encrypted. That being said, WhatsApp is like the authorized garage where you know that you'll get the service which is officially recognized…
Care to qualify that speculation with some evidence? It seems like whenever telegram is brought up here, there's a lot of speculation about it not being trustworthy but no concrete evidence. The client is open source. While not end to end encrypted by default, it shares that property with most messengers. E2E limits search-ability and other features so it's a tradeoff. I have to wonder if part of why this is mostly b…
I think it has more to do with the fact that there is no known reason for the organisation behind Telegram to provide it. It doesn’t make money from users, it has large operating and development costs, it keeps access to a lot of personal data without regulation, it is not a non-profit funded by donations and being open about their operation…
So most realistic hypotheses about that organization is that it’s shady. There are very few other possible explanations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is about that one functionality being mutually exclusive with other functionality. That is a design decision made by Telegram. My e2ee Signal and Matrix groups sync just fine across devices, preserve message history, allow message forwarding, etc. Not enabeling those features is a nudge against using the e2ee-feature. Facebook Messenger does the same by crippling their encrypted chat experience. The reason mos…
Signal does not sync across devices; they have per-device queue and the message is encrypted with each device keys. If your device doesn't pick the message from the queue on time (either before queue getting full, or expiring after ~60 days), you won't have that message on that specific device, ever. You also won't have older messages (before you enrolled the device) on it (that also means you won't have the old mess…
> it is difficult to explain the Telegram's tradeoffs, how would you explain that to common users?
I think that serves as an additional indicator for the trade-off decision not being a conscious user choice.
I'm not sure many people would opt for unencrypted chat even if they fully understood those particular multi-device limitations you described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Platform sync is bad. 2) Backups drain my battery. 3) Notifications across platform are weird. 4) Video calling quality is now an issue. Previously it wasn't. 5) No usernames and no ingrained privacy controls to prevent users from calling me.
1. Having to share the phone number is the biggest issue for me. This shouldn't be the case in 2021. I can only use Signal with my close friends. OTOH, I can confidently share my Telegram handle with anyone I have known for a some months, even online (not in anonymus forums, of course). 2. Notifications in one platform is weird for me. 3. Video quality is extremely bad to the extent of unusable. 4. Completely agree w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of these claims are described in [0]: > WhatsApp still won't be able to access any of your communications or share them with Facebook. Meanwhile, WhatsApp will be able to share user account information like your phone number, logs of how long and how often you use WhatsApp, device identifiers, IP addresses, and other details about your device with Facebook. Plus, WhatsApp can share transaction and payment data,…
None of this is about knowing apps you have installed. Cant be exaggeration if it isn’t true in any sense. That’s the only specific point brought up by your parent comment.
For the exaggeration, I would happily answer but I would need to know on which access you felt I exaggerated (except the fact I did not know Apple kept this list only to itself and friends). The data categories I mentioned are quite straightforward and not specifically obtained by WhatsApp only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iOS apps can’t find out what other apps you have installed. With gdpr, you can at least download all the data they have collected about you. Have you verified your Trojan horse claim?
> With gdpr, you can at least download all the data they have collected about you. I don’t believe this is correct: They may only have to provide data they “control” (in the GDPR-sense of the word; see Art.15,3) If they merely downloaded it for processing into market segments or even just generated high-value marketing segments directly on the device, they would only have to and be able to give you the list of those…
1. You only get the data you provided to the service, not the data they derived from your use of the service. Incidentally, this second data set can be as much critical when shared to third parties.
2. You only get the data they kept about you, not the data that resulted from the various transfers to their partner companies and which was thereafter correlated with other databases.
These two sets of data are about the user, but the user never gets to see it, unless it is explicitly requested to the partner companies.
Thanks Trojan horse GDPR.