I think that there is something nasty with this Vice article. A hidden agenda maybe?
It reads like if it is an informercial for whatsapp.
It is very strange that it advise everyone to go to whatsapp and not any other solution and does not evocate all the issues with whatsapp.
For example the fact that enabling automatic backups is strongly pushed on users but these backup are performed on google drive in clear, not encrypted!
And so far, in spite of the telegram issues that are well known, Telegram never betrayed any user to this day as far as I know.
Also it is strange that they use nazi arguments and co. It's not because you don't appreciate some people or ideas that a platform should censor them. Also the goal of the platform is especially to not mess with users data. So I find it very strange to say that it should be uninstalled both because it does not encrypt enough and also because you say that they should look more into their users messages!
Maybe it's just a series of clickbait junk targeting popular apps so that the many happy users of those apps give him plenty of interactions. I bet he's watching the metrics right now.
1. I wouldn't call that obvious. I could claim that any messenger that doesn't use OTP is unsecure, because in comparison they are. So this is a generic complaint that applies to literally all existing communication tooling available to normal folks. Hence, not helpful.
2. Only if you give it access, so also not obvious
It has nothing to do with Facebook, Google and Microsoft. And to me, that's what matters most, along with open defiance of state effort to force the platform to snoop. They didn't bow to Russia, USA and China.
Before someone brings up Signal, that project was developed in money from US agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a shop operation, like the (backdoor ridden) Swiss encryption hardware company the CIA was running for 40 years.
> that project was developed in money from US agencies.
So was TOR.
I defend Telegram, but this is not on its own a valid argument against Signal, only an encouragement to verify it extremely closely before trusting it.
End to end encryption is a known trade off for cloud-saved chats, and the article makes out like the German police were intercepting DMs rather than what is more likely, having infiltrated a group.
I don't see anything that hasn't been know for a while. Telegram is convenient but not secure or safe. At least not by default. Is it actually possible to make it as secure as something like Signal?
Use Signal if you care about security and safety. Threema is another alternative I hear people talk about although I have not used it personally.
I got my family off WhatsApp for our family chat last year and it has been great. Excellent video and voice call quality imho.
I have used Threema and I like it, but the barrier is that it is not a free app. I've only been able to get fellow nerds to install it.
I like the idea that it indicates the level of safety you have with another person quite clearly. The highest level is when you physically scan one another's QR codes when you meet in person so you know nobody is inserting themselves into your key exchange.
> I don't see anything that hasn't been know for a while.
But known by whom? It seems Telegram has a fame for being secure and trustable enough that the "underdogs" of society who think they have reason to ensure their safety are using it en masse. Spreading education about their misbeliefs might be not so wrong.
I understand folks ITT saying some of these are known issues, but it’s important to remember this community is more informed than most others in terms of technology.
I’ve absolutely had to steer some users away from telegram who were misled and under the mistaken impression that telegram was a privacy panacea.
In today’s climate where many activists and others actually need privacy/security, this article will hopefully reach and inform some of the types who swim in different circles than this little community.
Flagged this one for being on edge of being a conspiracy theory. Others have already talked about the misdirection of certain points in this article. And honestly, the questions they ask about why not end to end encryption by default has also been answered by Durov in his blog posts. I can't get the link right now, but it's from August 14 2017. Overall, this article is just noise and clickbait.
The fact that Telegram isn't enthusiastically censoring everyone who even looks like they might have the wrong opinion is what makes it such a unique treasure. Feature, not bug.
Also their software is literally just better. Proper multidevice and autosync, better performance / UI, easier to customize, more features (even too much in my opinion), no phone number required, and and and
3 of 5 are known and uncontested, made up to be a big deal while they are not. Most of my friends use Telegram (a few hundred). None of them mention security as a reason for using Telegram.
Writing it this way is equally stupid to making a big deal out of of the fact that everything you post on Twitter is by default public: yes, everbody knew in the same way everybody who needs to know knows that Telegram is only point-to-point encrypted, not e2e-encrypted.
Then there's the two last ones:
- According to the article Telegram tolerates nazis: here Vice makes a mess in at least three ways:
1. If contents were encrypted the way they wished further up, Telegram couldn't even remove it.
2. Telegram bans open groups and channels that promote illegal content. They just haven't AFAIK been caught nosing in private messages. IMO this is a goodnthing.
3. They also mix a lot of unrelated stuff here: I can disagree all I want with all them, but COVID-19 deniers, neonazis and QAnon doesn't belong together in this paragraph.
- According to Vice Telegram refuses to talk to journalists.
Because of the mess above I support Telegram even if they refuse to speak to this journalist.
There are journalists and there are journalists. Some will follow a story wherever the facts lead them, others will go wherever as long as they can sense the sweet smell of clicks.
[+] [-] greatgib|5 years ago|reply
It reads like if it is an informercial for whatsapp.
It is very strange that it advise everyone to go to whatsapp and not any other solution and does not evocate all the issues with whatsapp. For example the fact that enabling automatic backups is strongly pushed on users but these backup are performed on google drive in clear, not encrypted!
And so far, in spite of the telegram issues that are well known, Telegram never betrayed any user to this day as far as I know.
Also it is strange that they use nazi arguments and co. It's not because you don't appreciate some people or ideas that a platform should censor them. Also the goal of the platform is especially to not mess with users data. So I find it very strange to say that it should be uninstalled both because it does not encrypt enough and also because you say that they should look more into their users messages!
[+] [-] FruityCoconut|5 years ago|reply
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4qjd/whatsapp-data-securit...
"Six Reasons You Should Delete WhatsApp"
Maybe it's just a series of clickbait junk targeting popular apps so that the many happy users of those apps give him plenty of interactions. I bet he's watching the metrics right now.
[+] [-] orbital-decay|5 years ago|reply
1. No e2e encryption by default (valid, obvious)
2. Telegram has access to the metadata and contacts (valid, obvious)
3. They refuse to deplatform certain content (???)
4. An old and well understood bug/tradeoff/feature which has been fixed or mitigated long ago, after it was reported or abused
5. They didn't respond to Vice, so they "aren't forthcoming with journalists" (what does it have to do with security?)
I'm not using it and no fan of it, but I expected actual technical reasons instead of reading a hit piece with no content.
[+] [-] Tepix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valenterry|5 years ago|reply
2. Only if you give it access, so also not obvious
[+] [-] tubularhells|5 years ago|reply
Before someone brings up Signal, that project was developed in money from US agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a shop operation, like the (backdoor ridden) Swiss encryption hardware company the CIA was running for 40 years.
[+] [-] eitland|5 years ago|reply
So was TOR.
I defend Telegram, but this is not on its own a valid argument against Signal, only an encouragement to verify it extremely closely before trusting it.
[+] [-] valvar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattieTK|5 years ago|reply
End to end encryption is a known trade off for cloud-saved chats, and the article makes out like the German police were intercepting DMs rather than what is more likely, having infiltrated a group.
[+] [-] satysin|5 years ago|reply
Use Signal if you care about security and safety. Threema is another alternative I hear people talk about although I have not used it personally.
I got my family off WhatsApp for our family chat last year and it has been great. Excellent video and voice call quality imho.
[+] [-] siberianbear|5 years ago|reply
I like the idea that it indicates the level of safety you have with another person quite clearly. The highest level is when you physically scan one another's QR codes when you meet in person so you know nobody is inserting themselves into your key exchange.
[+] [-] slightwinder|5 years ago|reply
But known by whom? It seems Telegram has a fame for being secure and trustable enough that the "underdogs" of society who think they have reason to ensure their safety are using it en masse. Spreading education about their misbeliefs might be not so wrong.
[+] [-] Vilaozao|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmarice|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toofy|5 years ago|reply
I’ve absolutely had to steer some users away from telegram who were misled and under the mistaken impression that telegram was a privacy panacea.
In today’s climate where many activists and others actually need privacy/security, this article will hopefully reach and inform some of the types who swim in different circles than this little community.
[+] [-] nstart|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmtech|5 years ago|reply
If your threat model doesn't really include the government but does include people stalking you then telegram is actually better than Signal.
With Signal you have to buy a new SIM card to get rid of a stalker, which is a huge annoyance.
[+] [-] Tepix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FreekNortier|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FruityCoconut|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valenterry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eitland|5 years ago|reply
3 of 5 are known and uncontested, made up to be a big deal while they are not. Most of my friends use Telegram (a few hundred). None of them mention security as a reason for using Telegram.
Writing it this way is equally stupid to making a big deal out of of the fact that everything you post on Twitter is by default public: yes, everbody knew in the same way everybody who needs to know knows that Telegram is only point-to-point encrypted, not e2e-encrypted.
Then there's the two last ones:
- According to the article Telegram tolerates nazis: here Vice makes a mess in at least three ways:
1. If contents were encrypted the way they wished further up, Telegram couldn't even remove it.
2. Telegram bans open groups and channels that promote illegal content. They just haven't AFAIK been caught nosing in private messages. IMO this is a goodnthing.
3. They also mix a lot of unrelated stuff here: I can disagree all I want with all them, but COVID-19 deniers, neonazis and QAnon doesn't belong together in this paragraph.
- According to Vice Telegram refuses to talk to journalists.
Because of the mess above I support Telegram even if they refuse to speak to this journalist.
There are journalists and there are journalists. Some will follow a story wherever the facts lead them, others will go wherever as long as they can sense the sweet smell of clicks.