[AdrenalinMd]

My point is precisely this: With robust end-to-end encryption in place, there's no need to rely on the trustworthiness of the backend. Unfortunately, Telegram lacks this feature, making it untrustworthy.

Even with Telegram's encryption, messages can be compromised through a straightforward SIM swap. This means that their encryption is essentially irrelevant since messages can be read without needing an encryption key from the client.

I recommend checking out Moxie Marlinspike's Twitter thread on this topic for further insight. You can find the link I previously shared in another thread.

[NayamAmarshe]

> With robust end-to-end encryption in place, there's no need to rely on the trustworthiness of the backend

Actually there is. The backend transferring information is the sole point of failure. While the message content might be secure, nothing other than that ever is. In fact, an E2EE app could send unencrypted messages in the payload or the private keys and you still wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

This is why I question WhatsApp's effectiveness in the first place.

> Even with Telegram's encryption, messages can be compromised through a straightforward SIM swap

2FA - Cloud Passwords have existed for a long time. Most people fail to mention it when mentioning SIM swap, which is a physical device security issue, a responsibility of the user.

> I recommend checking out Moxie Marlinspike's Twitter thread on this topic for further insight.

I'm sorry but I consider that misinformation at worst and propaganda at best.

He thinks that any encryption that's not his, is 'plain-text'. On top of that, he's very much the reason why Signal was never released on F-Droid. He's got some weird biases against other tech that he can go to any lengths to defend it.

Not only are his Twitter threads loaded with bias but the language he chooses to use, I'd consider that plain misinformation. He does not have any authority to claim things he can't prove.