Ignoring the context.
Don’t pirate over Telegram, it’s no longer safe in terms of privacy and legal safety.
You must log in or register to comment.
Meh, you never could trust them.
Group chats were NEVER encrypted, so I’m surprised that people are just now figuring out that if it’s not encrypted = people can read it.
If it wasn’t a 1:1 “secret chat” encrypted message, then congrats, you weren’t as opsec-y as you thought you were.
This kind of confusion illustrated by Telegram users is exactly why it was the right thing to do for privacy when Signal removed support for SMS because it’s not encrypted. People still whine endlessly about it, but most users are not very savvy, and they’ll assume “this app is secure” and gleefully send compromised SMS to each other. All the warnings and UI indicators that parts of the app were less secure (or not at all in the case of SMS) would be ignored by many users, resulting in an effectively more dangerous app. Signal was smart to remove those insecure features entirely.
Yeah. You can’t offer a half-secure and half-private platform and expect your average person to be able to figure out which half is which, which leads to crazy misconceptions, misunderstandings, and ultimately just a bunch of wrong and misleading information being passed around.
I’d argue, though, that Telegram probably did this on purpose, and profited GREATLY from being obtuse and misleading.
I wonder if they’ll add RCS
Don’t Google hold the keys to the kingdom on that one? I see it as unlikely that Signal adds support.
At the moment, essentially.
The way Google got carrier buy-in for yet another messaging platform was to basically run it for them at no charge.
The carriers COULD run their own RCS infra, but if you’re getting the milk for free, why buy the cow?
I’m not sure, at least iMessage will add RCS. But this has the benefit to get the correct chat bubble color for Google. I’m not sure if there’ll be anything to gain for them to include Signal. Maybe the EU will force them.
RCS isn’t E2E, and it doesn’t minimize metadata.
Moxie Marlinspike has been strongly against federation in Signal because of how it makes avoiding metadata almost impossible.
I’d say there’s basically zero chances Signal will add RCS.
E2E is not in the standard, but the Google implementation uses it.
Google added end-to-end encryption to their Messages app using the Signal Protocol as the default option for one-on-one RCS conversations starting in June 2021,[88] [89] (83] [90] In December 2022, end-to-end encryption was added to group chats in the Google Messages app for beta users and was made available to all users in August 2023.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
You’re right. I’ve read somewhere that Apple plans to work with GSMA to add encryption to the official RCS standard, so this major issue hopefully gets fixed at some point.
That’s why I stopped using it. They require a phone number, phone numbers require kyc with an ID around here, and there’s just too much illegal shit on there.
It’s of course possible to get a more pseudonymous experience, but honestly, what they offer isn’t worth the hastle.
Telegram never was private, group chats never were encrypted (and that’s not an opinion: the feature simply is missing). If anything, they are just removing their false and deceiving claims. That they remained there for so long is something I can’t wrap my head around.
They were cutting files in smaller parts and spreading over multiple locations and countries. At least that was the claim in the early days, so anything illegal would require lawyers on many jurisdictions sending the same letter (e.g. DMCA takedown)
Ironically, it did work but now that Durov is in jail channel admins would do good to take precautions.
What kind of system that depends on centralized servers can ever be secure from government snooping?
That kind of architecture is completely hopeless in that regard.
Is a encrypted, distributed, P2P architecture realistic though?
What kind of system that depends on centralized servers can ever be secure from government snooping?
With properly implemented E2EE it can be less of a problem because at least the message content isn’t readable to them. Metadata though
XMPP with the OMEMO extension is close, no? While Matrix isn’t distributed, it is decentralised like Lemmy and Mastodon, and E2EE by default. That could be the closest thing to what you mean?
Telegram was never safe. All anyone ever had was their word that some chats are end-to-end encrypted.
Show me the code where you found the evidence.
My point. We don’t have code so we have to trust them blindly.
After their CEO being detained and arrested in France because of the illegal activity on his platform, it was a matter of time.
The guy has a history of making something that looks good and then selling it to governments. I’m surprised people took the bait for the second time.
Could I ask what the first time was?
I guess he is referring to VK, but I heard he was foced to get out.
You heard right. He never “sold” anything to any govt, he went to Dubai and hosted TG across like 50 different countries so glowies would be drowned in paperwork before they ever got a chance to submit a subpoena for anything, encrypted or otherwise, with it’s founder in a nation that basically gives zero fucks about international laws and affairs.
This is why TG was so trustworthy and had such a massive and brazen criminal element
As some people poined out, I was talking about VK. A Russian social network that ended up in the claws of Russian government, which in turn ended up in massive political repressions of it’s userbase for posting “wrong” things.
He then made Telegram and used Russian government’s attempts to block it as a PR campaign. I guess that’s what made it so appealing at first, but now French government stepped in and we are going all over again.
Telegram has NEVER been safe and private.
Evidently it was.
Encryption shmencryption, there was a reason people used TG and not WhatsApp and it’s because the former just very clearly doesn’t glow and it’s why Durov was arrested and not Zuckerberg. The technicals are only a part of it, the politics are arguably far more a part of it.
I wonder how many terrorist (and “terrorist”) plots that were foiled were from compromised telegram messages. How many Ukrainian airstrikes were called from similar sources. My gut says a whole lot more than people think. Since nothing is encrypted, one backdoor is all the NSA needs to read everyone’s group messages. Like the much lamer version of Crypto AG, because in this case it’s an open secret.
Why would they go through all the trouble when they could simply join the channels by posing as people who belong?
They could turn on end to end encryption and the fact that they aren’t doing that is telling imo.
Every time something like this gets posted a bunch of snobby elitist types come out to point and laugh and talk about how obvious it is that the thing wasn’t safe. Well what is? What’s the special secret you’re keeping from everyone else? If you don’t have one to share, STFU with the smarmy attitudes.
I think a invite only matrix server would do the trick, and better than signal, they don’t want large groups.
Can someone start a Signal group? That’s encrypted and safe for sure. You can use usernames and have public groups.
The best way would be using SimpleX do doing such stuff
But if you just interact with the channel and just download isn’t it ok? I mean I ain’t hosting it. Or you reckon even users might get in trouble depending on your country?
Signal is not better than matrix in any way… or xmpp
Why do you say Signal is no better?
Edit: misread as comparing to telegram, not matrix.
Signal being centralized just ruins it compared to matrix.
Xmpp is not encrypted. So sorry but without that, your sentence makes no sense at all.
Have you seen an XMPP setup these days that doesn’t have installed all the extra stuff to allow encryption, voice and a lot of other bells and whistles?
I had no idea XMPP wasn’t encrypted, JFC that’s garbage
I mean you can (client side). But the protocol is agnostic of any encryption.
