68
Telegram will now hand over your phone number and IP if you’re a criminal suspect
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
68 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
1205 readers
88 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Telegram's "encryption" does not protect in any way against dump/search server side (outside of secrets chats).
Telegram's "encryption" only protects from your ISP spying, and it's the kind of encryption that everyone implements. Any website that does not implement such encryption would show a big red "Not secure" warning in your browser.
In their explanation it was specifically stated that it should be either impossible or too difficult. Keeping keys and content separately, that's what it's about iirc. Either way the point of telegram is not in privacy for everyone. You trade protection for convenience (cloud data and great clients), and if you want you can use secret chats. That's it. Seeing their user base, it suits most people. We'll see if their server data gets leaked or something, though it didn't happen yet.
Just use something that isn't a child abuse Russian chat app. There are so many better options.
Use for what? Are there alternatives that aggregate news, have bot support, non-electron clients and immediately sync between desktop and mobile?
Yes? You aren't going to find a one to one telegram clone. A replacement isn't a clone
Matrix is probably what you want but it isn't encrypted e2ee by default.
Signal and Simplex chat have full encryption but are closer to a WhatsApp alternative
You know I wasn't asking for a replacement. You're suggesting e2ee-first software to people who might not really need it in the first place.
Personally, when I think about all the quirks and requirements that must be met for some chat to happily accept a new member in a e2ee scheme, I get mad. My daily chats, gifs and cat photos aren't worth everyone's effort and discomfort.
Also, I use WhatsApp not because I like it but because it's easier than forcing dozens of people to use something else. I hate it because of how it works, and it doesn't have anything to do with e2ee part (it's worthless for stuff I use WhatsApp for). I like that it dropped electron though - I value my ram.
That's not what their marketing says.
Most people have zero idea what kind of security telegram provides.
They're lying? Encryption at rest does not protect at all against the server snooping around. When you send or receive a message, the server has to see it in plaintext unless you have E2EE. So there is a way for them to access the plaintext of any message you receive, and it happens automatically billions of times per day. It's pretty easy.
That's wrong. There is no plaintext transfer. While a lot of stuff can potentially happen on server every second as you said, it doesn't happen according to them. I don't trust that fully either but that's their argument. You can look up encryption schemes in their faq.
I didn't say that there was any network plaintext transfer. I said the server needs to have access to the plaintext at some point.
That's not actually what they say, because it would be the cryptographic equivalent of claiming they invented a new color.
They talk about encryption at rest without mentioning the rest of their infrastructure to confuse the hell out of people that don't understand encryption. Given your comments it seems to work.