961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>christogrozev Well, if this guy starts damage controlling, this is definitely a CIA operation
All I’ll say about Grozev is read his Wikipedia. A brilliant journalist. He’s in that video where Navalny calls the guy that poisoned him.
People are complex creatures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram encryption is off by default and is a joke compared to Signal and others. This has nothing to do with encryption. I could list a dozen E2E encrypted things in common use that are all legal and online. It has nothing to do with ordinary sorts of “bad” content either like hate speech or crypto scams or whatever. All of that can be found in abundance in many places, all of which are still online. This is about…
> Telegram encryption is off by default This is false. Telegram's non-secret chats use MTProto 2.0 Cloud. "Encryption is off by default" is a false claim. 1. https://telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests 2. https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/description
The only context where client-server encryption matters is when I want secure e-commerce, or to shield from my ISP what searches I make or what I do on sites.
So much for “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. I wonder if this will help push founders more to the US.
While on the subject of Telegram, check this out: https://github.com/simplex-chat
This is very clearly the reason why I trust Telegram 100 times more than Signal. Signal conveniently appeared when Telegram became popular. Now that they couldn't stop Telegram they're actively trying to take it down or gain control over it.
Telegram: client source code shows e.g. all group messages are always shared to the company
Signal: client source code shows end-to-end encryption is always on for every message.
You pretending reality isn't real is really telling.
Also Telegram conveniently appeared when WhatsApp became popular and it was the spitting image of WA back then. Typical Russian IT economy where all they know is how to copy. First Durov copied FB to VKontakte, then he copied WA to TG.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A channel that incites violence is against the law (in some countries). A channel selling drugs is against the law. These are few examples. I do not how the specific details of the French case to comment on the specifics. I could believe the arrest is poorly justified, but I have reasonably belief in their justice system.
A channel doesn’t do that though. People do that. If I take a megaphone to the street corner and start selling drugs, are you really going to arrest the megaphone I used?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram is not E2EE (with the exception of phone-only 1-on-1 Secret Chats, which are also questionable security-wise). Telegram has access to everything ever shared on their services, even if users delete it. Signal by design can't moderate their service. Telegram by design has full access, but doesn't act on it.
Yes, I know this, as I have said in another comment. Sorry. Me: >Also Telegram is not E2E by default. You need to activate it per chat. By default and in groups it is only server encrypted. But if it was fully E2EE, would this arrest not have happened?
Not clear right now if France thinks he was actively complicit with the four horsemen listed, or if just the act of running Telegram makes him complicit in their eyes, or something in the middle, e.g. they asked for help and Telegram turned them down. This will be an interesting case to watch -- I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort -- but generally my un…
But here's the thing. If your app is known to be uses heavily by criminals ranging from Pedo's to drug dealers. You are liable. You run a carrier service. Much like the owner of omegle found out, yes you do have a duty of care. You can't just provide a service that knowingly provides a platform to criminal activity and do jack shit. You live in fairytale land if you think you can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Famous quote that if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will get neither.
*sigh* Dude, if it's really that relevant and compelling at least quote it properly . It's 2024, finding and copy-pasting is barely slower than typing a bad paraphrase. > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- A committee which included Benjamin Franklin _____________ That said, this quote is typically misused, or at best being used way…
Those who would give up essential Long-Term Economic Stability, to purchase a little temporary Shareholder Profits, deserve neither Long-Term Economic Stability nor Shareholder Profits.
Those who would give up essential Vendor Independence, to purchase a little temporary High-Resolution Retina Display, deserve neither Vendor Independence nor High-Resolution Retina Display.
Those who would give up essential Safety, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Those who would give up essential Refrigerator, to purchase a little temporary Stockpile of Peanut Butter, deserve neither Refrigerator nor Stockpile of Peanut Butter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I wouldn't travel to France, the UK, or any other oppressive regime in these times.
It’s like any other country: the United States, Russia, China, North Korea or Iran. Don’t cross the people in charge, and you will be fine.