• Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    1 month ago

    Telegram was built to protect activists and ordinary people from corrupt governments and corporations – we do not allow criminals to abuse our platform to evade justice.

    So who gets to pick what’s a lawful request and criminal activity? It’s criminal in some states to seek an abortion or help with an abortion, so would they hand out the IPs of those “criminals”? Because depending on who you ask some will tell you they’re basically murderers. And that’s just one example.

    Good privacy apps have nothing to hand out to any government, like Signal.

    • shortwavesurfer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 month ago

      Exactly. The strive for zero knowledge is the proper way to be going.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        But then you can’t sell your customer’s data for profit. Even if you don’t now, you still have that option in the future.

        • shortwavesurfer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Exactly. Which is the entire reason you should do it. Since you can’t sell your customers for profit, that means you have to profit off of your customers. And another business could start up and compete with you. Also, your customers will trust you more.

    • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The second I went to sign up and learned a phone number was absolutely required, I knew that their privacy was pure bullshit. That little declaration at the end here is an absolute slap to the face.

        • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s bad for privacy no matter how you sell it. Unless you have a good amount of disposable income to buy up burner numbers all the time, a phone number tends to be incredibly identifying. So if a government agency comes along saying “Hey, we know this account sent this message and you have to give us everything you have about this account,” for the average person, it doesn’t end up being that different than having given them your full id.

          • calamityjanitor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            Another aspect is the social graph. It’s targeted for normies to easily switch to.

            Very few people want to install a communication app, open the compose screen for the first time, and be met by an empty list of who they can communicate with.

            https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

            By using phone numbers, you can message your friends without needing to have them all register usernames and tell them to you. It also means Signal doesn’t need to keep a copy of your contact list on their servers, everyone has their local contact list.

            This means private messages for loads of people, their goal.

            Hey, we know this account sent this message and you have to give us everything you have about this account

            It’s a bit backwards, since your account is your phone number, the agency would be asking “give us everything you have from this number”. They’ve already IDed you at that point.

            • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yep, at that point they’re just fishing for more which, hey, why wouldn’t they.

              It’s a give and take for sure, requiring a real phone number makes it harder for automated spam bots to use the service, but at the same time, it puts the weight of true privacy on the shoulders and wallets of the users, and in a lesser way, incentives the use of less than reputable services, should a user want to truly keep their activities private.

              And yeah, there’s an argument to be made for keeping crime at bay, but that also comes with risks itself. If there was some way to keep truly egregious use at bay while not risking a $10,000 fine on someone for downloading an episode of Ms. Marvel, I think that would be great.

            • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Says right there in the subpoena “You are required to provide all information tied to the following phone numbers.” This means that the phone number requirement has already created a leak of private information in this instance, Signal simply couldn’t add more to it.

              Additionally, that was posted in 2021. Since then, Signal has introduced usernames to “keep your phone number private.” Good for your average Joe Blow, but should another subpoena be submitted, now stating “You are required to provide all information tied to the following usernames,” this time they will have something to give, being the user’s phone number, which can then be used to tie any use of Signal they already have proof of back to the individual.

              Yeah, it’s great that they don’t log what you send, but that doesn’t help if they get proof in any other way. The fact is, because of the phone number requirement, anything you ever send on Signal can easily be tied back to you should it get out, and that subpoena alone is proof that it does.

          • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Guys like you see privacy as a monolith, that it never is. Unusable privacy is meanigless as email had shown. Privacy of communications does not mean privacy of communicators and usable authentication can be more important then anonymity.

            And all this has to be realised on real-world servers, that are always in reach of real world goverment.

    • NoFuckingWaynado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      In the US, agents must petition a judge for a search warrant. If granted, the agent may then compel an IT company to produce. If they are able, they must comply. It isn’t up to the CEO to decide what he feels is right.

      Look for services that allow your data to be encrypted, but it must also clearly state the service provider does not have the encryption keys – you do. Apple does this, I believe.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      So who gets to pick what’s a lawful request and criminal activity?

      Probably Telegram themselves. Durov was forced into exile by Putin.

          • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            The country in which the perpetrator lives or the crime was committed. First time using the internet?

            In your opinion, all companies must disclose the personal information of customers whenever a Government says “This person broke the law”?

              • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                None of this is my opinion, it’s just how the world works LOL

                Can you elaborate?

                Not necessarily, but kinda. The gov typically need some sort of warrant and they need approval from the country they’re requesting it from.

                Which Government?

                Pardon my ignorance as this is my first time using the internet, but I am pretty sure that every Government on the planet does not use a universal set of laws or procedures for enforcement.

  • lefixxx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    All.non E2EE chat apps do this. Also Apple, Facebook, google etc. And don’t forget the us gov has no problem giving a gag order and demand backdoors and encryption keys (lavamail).

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    All this talk of encryption and sopenas is mostly pointless - all the police need to do is join any of the Telegram channels and see the evidence for themselves, like in this case - https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350438242/man-who-wanted-build-gallows-hear-jacinda-arderns-neck-snap-guilty-threats-kill

    No doubt there are private channels but there’s absolutely no shortage of criminal stuff happening out in the open.

      • KillerTofu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s what subpoenas are for, to request the ip address and other identifying information are for. The documentation of activity in the channel is the evidence shown to a judge that then gets the official legal request.

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Half of them use their real name. Also a lot of them are sharing links to content they’ve posted using their personal FB account or whatever. They don’t even try to have any opsec because they don’t think they’re doing anything wrong.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    My younger sister (Gen Z) talks smack about my generation (millennial) overuse of emojis and this Telegram post is making me agree with her. The attempt at cutesie emojis is jarring.

  • shortwavesurfer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    On a privacy note in general, I got an email from Proton today saying that they were changing their terms of service and I actually care enough about the service that I went and read the new terms and privacy policies for the products that I use. I will admit to not understanding a lot of the legal ease, but the part I was most interested in was the data retention policies and data encryption. And that all seems to be pretty bulletproof from a tech angle.