Telegram continues trying to repair its reputation.

  • rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Possibly linux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Just use something that isn’t a child abuse Russian chat app. There are so many better options.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Use for what? Are there alternatives that aggregate news, have bot support, non-electron clients and immediately sync between desktop and mobile?

        • Possibly linux
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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

          • rdri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            A replacement isn’t a clone

            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.

    • teolan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      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.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • teolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          it doesn’t happen according to them

          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.

    • teolan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Either way the point of telegram is not in privacy for everyone. You trade protection for convenience (cloud data and great clients)

      That’s not what their marketing says.

      Seeing their user base, it suits most people.

      Most people have zero idea what kind of security telegram provides.