• TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    the answer from my perspective is quite simple. Noncompliance. If telegram had complied to local laws, like the others have and continue to do, he would not have gotten in trouble.

    Exactly you’re getting there. Now let me ask something, if Facebook/Apple/Signal/Matrix comply with such laws how private are they? Those companies will happily censor chats and hand records to the govt, Telegram won’t.

    Now you can argue that they do hand info the the govts but it is all encrypted and whatnot… do you really trust there aren’t backdoors there? Or cleaver ways to get around it like what we saw with push notifications or macOS analytics?

    Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc. If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.

    • anytimesoon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not much of this makes sense. Maybe we don’t have an equal understanding of private. If thats the case, this discussion is going nowhere.

      I will point out, though, that this is particularly nonsensical

      Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc.

      Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open

        This isn’t even true, Telegram isn’t IRC. Like any modern application, uses SSL (encapsulated in MTProto) to protect connections. Govts will only have access if they manage to compromise those certificates, like your bank’s website.

        • Persen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Or if they copy the data from the servers, as it isn’t e2e, the data is unencrypted on the server (or usually encrypted on the server with keys accesible by people working there) as far as I know.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.

      It doesn’t have anything to do with what “everyone says”. We don’t do that with security. Well, Telegram users do, but Charles Darwin wrote about that process. Others look at what academics say or are competent enough themselves (no, you are not).

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Every encryption is secure until someone breaks it. Like we saw on Wifi (WPA2 and WPS) or the push notification issue it may not even be a direct attack to the cryptography of something, may be a way around it.