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

After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

livelaw.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#191

Post by Normille »

wallaBBB wrote: post #102
Normille wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>With Telegram I can see at least appeal in using it as news source, chat room or for bots, but what offers Signal besides hype about The Current Thing?... I use Telegram as a less 'facebooky' alternative to WhatsApp. Most of my friends and all my family are on it and, as a convenient messenger, it has a lot going for it; fast, 100% reliable sync across all my devices, generous file transfers, ability to quickly ping…

With the amount of fake news being pushed through Telegram groups that are public, Telegram is by far more Facebooky than WhatsApp. Ukrainian war disinformation and crypto scams being a good example of Facebookiness on Telegram.

Fair point. But at least, on Telegram, you have to actively seek out such channels to join and they don't otherwise impinge on your use of the service. It's not like other social media outlets where there's a central site which endlessly shoves crap you don't want to see in your face, every time you visit.

And yes, I know that, strictly speaking 'Telegram != social media'. But, with Telegram Channels, it does kind of cross over into the 'Discordy' end of social media.

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#192

Post by derwiki »

MattJ100 wrote: post #182
derwiki wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are varying degrees of “non-technical”, and you lost most of my family at “scan a QR code”

I know it's an anecdote, and I'm the founder of the Snikket project, but I rolled out an early version to 10+ family members during lockdown. The majority of them were remote and ages from 80. I emailed them the invitation link, and that was about it. They all managed to sign up with no issues. Scanning a QR isn't actually necessary. That flow exists for when you open the invitation on e.g. a desktop or laptop, and y…

My mother has no idea how to check her email and doesn't use it. She also doesn't know how to text. Or check voicemail. It's just another point of anecdata, but this is my bar for "non-technical."

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#193

Post by derwiki »

freeqaz wrote: post #168
derwiki wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are varying degrees of “non-technical”, and you lost most of my family at “scan a QR code”

I thought this was a skill that most people had now that most restaurants only give QR codes for menus?

My dad finally retired his 2008 flip phone last year, but before that a QR code would have been no help to him. I visited them recently, and not a single restaurant (business at all) had QR codes in their town.

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#194

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

tialaramex wrote: post #139
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes. yes yes. yes. yes 100%. the same reason i avoid whatsapp and signal like the plague. "mobile number" is in itself a big identifier when you are living in a place where you have o do mandatory KYC so that the government knows which each mobile number is linked to the actual human being. i dont care signal doesnt hold any messages. the government can ask for my number and they can use the xkcd spanner method to do…

> i dont care signal doesnt hold any messages. the government can ask for my number Whose number? How are the government going to "ask for your number" ? Signal doesn't hold any data that would let them answer that query if they wanted to.

>Whose number? How are the government going to "ask for your number" ? Signal doesn't hold any data that would let them answer that query if they wanted to.

does signal keep your mobile number? just that? not asking about metadata or actual message data, just number associated to an account?

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#195

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #166
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes. yes yes. yes. yes 100%. the same reason i avoid whatsapp and signal like the plague. "mobile number" is in itself a big identifier when you are living in a place where you have o do mandatory KYC so that the government knows which each mobile number is linked to the actual human being. i dont care signal doesnt hold any messages. the government can ask for my number and they can use the xkcd spanner method to do…

So I’m this threat model the government knows your phone number, suspects you’ve been communicating with others, and beats a confession out of you… Why is the phone number being used in a chat app significant? They can still beat you with a wrench to divulge your information even if it’s on Matrix or even pen and paper.

>They can still beat you with a wrench to divulge your information even if it’s on Matrix or even pen and paper.

this does not scale as easily. sure if you are an actual target, your goose is probably cooked anyway but what about the masses? i am just saying, what we call "mass surveilance" and wrench beating dont go hand in hand. mobile number helps them in mass surveilance which can give them more leads.

if that limb is removed, they can still do it but it is a bit harder so the hope is they will focus their time on only serious cases as opposed to everyone willy nilly because it is just so easy

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#196

Post by droopyEyelids »

aliqot wrote: post #140
Gasp0de wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Signal does require a phone number to register, they only know your phone number, your date of registration and the date of your phones last connection to signal's servers. Anyone requesting your information from them needs to provide your phone number, so any info they can get is account creation date and date of last connection.

Signal shouldn't ask for phone numbers. I don't give a shit what the justification is.

what's up with constraints in general? Why are some things a requirement for other things? let's abolish this.

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#198

Post by codedokode »

cpach wrote: post #128
codedokode wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion "secure messenger" should protect from any actor. If we start making exceptions then it cannot be called secure anymore. Signal requires extra information that is not necessary for exchanging messages. That is at least suspicious. If you are fine with giving away your number you can just use WhatsApp or Telegram.

“If you are fine with giving away your number you can just use WhatsApp or Telegram.” Those projects do not have the same high standards as Signal has. Especially not Telegram. I use Whatsapp for convenience/social reasons, but I definitely prefer Signal for the additional security. Telegram I don’t use at all. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to throw out the baby with bath water, just because Signal requires a phone…

Your phone number and messages can easily be leaked if there is a vulnerability in your smartphone OS or Signal app. However if you use a messenger not requiring a phone number, then attacker gets only the messages.

Also as I understand you have to give your number to your contacts to be able to chat with them. For comparison, Telegram allows adding contacts without sharing a phone number. So in Signal all contacts know your real identity and your location.

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#199

Post by cpach »

codedokode wrote: post #198
cpach wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you are fine with giving away your number you can just use WhatsApp or Telegram.” Those projects do not have the same high standards as Signal has. Especially not Telegram. I use Whatsapp for convenience/social reasons, but I definitely prefer Signal for the additional security. Telegram I don’t use at all. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to throw out the baby with bath water, just because Signal requires a phone…

Your phone number and messages can easily be leaked if there is a vulnerability in your smartphone OS or Signal app. However if you use a messenger not requiring a phone number, then attacker gets only the messages. Also as I understand you have to give your number to your contacts to be able to chat with them. For comparison, Telegram allows adding contacts without sharing a phone number. So in Signal all contacts k…

I’m not convinced about the reasonability of this threat model where leaking messages is fine but leaking the telephone number means game over.

However, I do understand that sharing one’s phone number is problematic for some users.

With that said: Until Signal implements user names in their system, please note that the user is not required to sign up for Signal with their primary telephone number. One could use Google Voice or a prepaid SIM card for example.

Re: After Delhi High Court ruling, Telegram discloses personal details of users

#200

Post by tialaramex »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #194
tialaramex wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i dont care signal doesnt hold any messages. the government can ask for my number Whose number? How are the government going to "ask for your number" ? Signal doesn't hold any data that would let them answer that query if they wanted to.

>Whose number? How are the government going to "ask for your number" ? Signal doesn't hold any data that would let them answer that query if they wanted to. does signal keep your mobile number? just that? not asking about metadata or actual message data, just number associated to an account?

Yes. The government can indeed ask, "Hey, what phone number is 1-555-123-4567 ?" and Signal can tell them it is "1-555-123-4567".

Or, instead of spending $$$ on lawyers to make Signal tell you the answer to obvious questions, which US government agencies have done several times - I reckon I'd do it for $10 per time, minimum order 1000 stupid questions.

I can do other stupid questions, wondering which Telegram user is "@foobar" ? I can tell you it's "@foobar" and for just $10. Now, Telegram can tell you a lot more about this user of theirs, so you might want to get the court to make them do that, but Signal don't know anything about their users so maybe my $10 service is more "useful" for Signal? I guess it really depends what you think the word "useful" means.

Post reply on HN