Eirikr70 France is a hypocritical government, like every government in the world, but more specifically in our country. Not everyone knows it, but France has passed laws against the protection of our journalists.
Freedom only makes sense if you think like the State. If France declares Hamas a terrorist group, that's the way it is, whereas for me it's clearly a resistance group, for example.
Pavel Durov Arrested.
Eirikr70 What offences did he commit in France? Furthermore, and I repeat, what I stated above, that "why did they spontaneously arrest Durov? If there was an ongoing investigation on him, and they determined that they needed to arrest him, why wasn't the warrant issued already??? Instead, they arrest him when he arrives in France by surprise. His country of residency has an extradition treaty with France, so France could have presented their case and issued a warrant which Dubai likely would have to reviews and validate its merit.
By your logic, CEOs of other companies can be arrested for crimes that they did not directly commit, however that were facilitated by their infrastructure, such as an app like signal.
[deleted] Telegram while not providing E2EE by default, provided the most robust and trustworthy platform. Durov's history showed that he will stand up for his users
Could you elaborate your view here? I am trying to understand this point of view, because I have quite opposite one.
From my perspective there is nothing robust, or even trustworthy on Telegram, when I compare it to Signal. Telegram set bad defaults, do not encrypt data, therefore they can manipulate with the data as they will. They could at least encrypt communication, but they chose not to. What exactly is robust and trustworthy about it? Am I missing something crucial here?
As for the second part that Durov would stand up for his users: Would you say that a person who is trying to collect as much data from you as he can, and that he can do anything with your data, and that even though this person could easily shield your personal communication with encryption, he made a choice not to use the encryption, that this person has Your interest in heart?
- Edited
matchboxbananasynergy I actually agree with what he says in the tweet. However, I'll point out, that it has nothing to do with his arrest. That issue can be argued separately. However, if we recall, many years ago, when Durov was facing arrest and had to leave Russia, The west considered him a hero. He was a beacon of democracy, fighting for freedom. Does anyone remember? There was way more offensive content then than there is now.
[deleted]
Moisture By robust i meant that its coded well and its a stable app. Channels wont shit temeselves unlike on matrix, and media file delivery works without issues unlike with Signal which often fails to play videos and has very lacking file type support. Telegram also has a very generous file size limit. From a usability standpoint nothing even came close. Its the most pleasant messenger to use.
Would you say that a person who is trying to collect as much data from you as he can
He is not "trying" to do that, and you're misrepresenting him as a person. Telegram has no interest in data mining users, because they don't profit from it. Durov's values contradict the conspiracy that he hasn't implemented E2EE for the purpose of harming users.
[deleted]
- Edited
Moisture
Telegram never said its E2EE. They claim its "secure" on the same basis as every other company that has server side storage of user data. Not being E2E encrypted doesn't mean its not "secure", it means it works fundamentally differently than Signal for example. You have to be OK with that when you choose to sign up for any service. I'd use Telegram over Whatsapp despite Whatsapp being E2EE, because ethics are decided by company practices and not technicalities (that being said e2ee is still important to take power away from the provider). Telegram is a highly ethical service that bleeds money.
[deleted]
Moisture Of course!
- Edited
[deleted] Channels wont shit temeselves unlike on matrix
Can't really compare a service that utilises a centralised server against a protocol that allows decentralised, cross-server communication between self-hosted instances, but ok.
media file delivery works without issues unlike with Signal which often fails to play videos and has very lacking file type support.
Probably something to do with Signal being actually E2EE (by default) and not Telegram, but people are free to correct me if this is caused/related to something else.
Telegram also has a very generous file size limit
I'm sure that has nothing to do with potential data collection whatsoever.
Telegram has no interest in data mining users, because they don't profit from it
Maybe, maybe not. They apparently do profit however from "Sponsored Messages", which is strange because any time I hear other organisations do similar ad-related things, it causes an uproar and accusations of data collection.
[deleted]
- Edited
Can't really compare a service that utilises a centralised server against a protocol that allows decentralised, cross-server communication between self-hosted instances, but ok.
How cant i compare them? They serve the same purpose and even the GrapheneOS team says matrix sucks for this.
Probably something to do with Signal being actually E2EE (by default) and not Telegram.
No it doesn't. You literally just recieve files and its on the client to handle them. Signal's client is far worse esepcially on desktop.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with potential data collection whatsoever.
You're right, it also doesn't have to do anything with that. You have no basis to claim otherwise. Take off the tinfoil hat. They have literally zero incentive to do what you say they'd do.
Maybe, maybe not. They apparently do profit however from "Sponsored Messages", which is strange because any time I hear other organisations do similar ad-related things, it causes an uproar and accusations of data collection.
This is a nothing burger. You can hear anything but you will have to prove that they collect data because of these ads. The client is open-source, you can see. Brave also shows ads and they are far less invasive than traditional ads. People complaining wont make them collect more data.
- Edited
How cant i compare them? They serve the same purpose and even the GrapheneOS team says matrix sucks for this.
........ because they're fundamentally different????? And who cares if GOS team says matrix sucks? That's a pointless deflection, since I never said that matrix was good. Simply that they "can't be compared".
No it doesn't. You literally just recieve files and its on the client to handle them. Signal's client is far worse esepcially on desktop.
So, it has nothing to do with encryption which at least if memory serves me right, has caused a difficulty for the transfer of non-text data in a few different apps/services? Either way, I don't care much about this point so I'm not going to bother arguing this point.
You're right, it also doesn't have to do anything with that. You have no basis to claim otherwise. Take off the tinfoil hat. They have literally zero incentive to do what you say they'd do.
Indeed I have no basis to claim otherwise hence why I said potential. I did not claim that they actually are. So no, I will not "take off my tinfoil hat" because it was never on in the first place, unlike the other user's comment that was just removed. As for "zero incentive", doubt. Like any service, they need to cover costs of maintenance. Especially for one of their size. To say that a common method of funding such costs is "zero incentive" is frankly laughable.
This is a nothing burger. You can hear anything but you will have to prove that they collect data because of these ads. The client is open-source, you can see. Brave also shows ads and they are far less invasive than traditional ads. People complaining wont make it collect more data.
If its a "nothing burger", then so is any other attempt to distribute/handle "private ads". Sure, their client is open source but Firefox is open source and still they get attacked with accusations of data collection (as do other open source projects no doubt). Brave gets regularly accused of data collection as well from what I've seen in the past, and are generally distrusted by a number of people in privacy communities for stuff relating to ads/crypto.
locked As far as the other companies facilitate the commission of grave offences, they can be investigated and the natural persons responsible for them can be arrested ... just like you and me if we carry messages for drugs dealers, give access to pedopornography or spread messages in favour of terrorism ... Just like you and me !
[deleted]
- Edited
Now as of telegram. Nothing suggests that they are doing anything with user data that would be for anything other than providing their service. They are not data mining users nor collecting excessive amounts of diagnostics. If you utilize "auto delete" its also gone from their servers, so people who deleted their chats have fewer things to worry about.
@[deleted] You conduct towards other community members here is not acceptable. It's unproductive, and quite frankly, childish.
It is very unfortunate that the community on the forum is proving time and time again that moderation should be stricter, not more lax, and that people are seemingly incapable of having mature and intelligent conversations about these topics without them not devolving into slapfights.
I'm removing numerous posts that add nothing of value to the thread beyond said slapfights and will consider further action regarding the thread and individual accounts after that.
[deleted] If you utilize "auto delete" its also gone from their servers, so people who deleted their chats have fewer things to worry about.
Who else would you extend this good faith to, I wonder? It's a genuine question. It really feels like people who would otherwise be extremely suspicious and be calling other services "honeypots" etc. seem to have a soft spot for Telegram in particular. Marketing goes a long way, I suppose. The long and short of it is, if there are no technical guarantees for the messages being confidential, which there isn't for the vast, vast majority of Telegram users, assuming the best case scenario is likely not your best choice.
Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that you specifically call other services honeypots or have similar opinions. It's mostly an observation after many days of discussing with people who had a fit when GrapheneOS explained that Telegram doesn't enable E2EE by default on X, Mastodon etc. Very weird behavior from some folks.
matchboxbananasynergy It's mostly an observation after many days of discussing with people who had a fit when GrapheneOS explained that Telegram doesn't enable E2EE by default on X, Mastodon etc. Very weird behavior from some folks.
It's generally difficult to have a healthy, constructive discussion when political influence, marketing influence and, worse when misinformation are involved. That's why these topics are banned from certain forums, along like sexuality and religion.
[deleted]
- Edited
matchboxbananasynergy Nothing. Telegram is a unique case and its not comparable to anything in this matter because nobody is insane enough to fund a project that WILL lose money without question. Applying the same logic as if this was a Facebook service is not appropriate.
I've seen people defending Telegram on X and they argue very weak points. Im not on their side but i do know Telegram's general company culture and ethical values. Im not debating that they have access to user data on paper, but they are 100% not abusing what they have on them. The GrapheneOS account DIDNT misrepresent Telegram and slander it. I fully agree with what they say. I however heavily disagree with basically every bad faith argument that is based on "other companies did bad stuff in the past". Telegram didn't even need to be open source to be successful, but they did it anyway. It contradicts the conspiracy of them being a big evil shadow company focusing on data collection.
Eirikr70 These are the same arguments that they have used in the past to try to weaken encryption, insert back doors, get Apple to scan their phones for CP, or to set backdoors You are basically saying that if encrypted messaging is used in the commission of a crime, then those responsible for facilitating that messaging if they are unable to help LEAs then could be arrested. That is B.S, and it's cowardly. You take away private messaging from criminals, and they will find other ways to communicate. You are just going to keep ordinary citizens from being able to keep any little bit of privacy they have left. criminals will resort to using ssh, or other homebrewed methods of using encryption. The government has been trying to get rid of encryption under the guise of protecting children, terrorism etc, and it has not worked. By the way, this is not my take, Apple ultimately came to this same conclusion, so did the EFF, and most security researchers.
locked Thankfully, the government doesn't need to do anything to take away E2EE in Telegram's case, because Telegram made it so inconvenient to use E2EE that almost nobody uses it. I made a Telegram account fairly recently since we have a public Telegram group bridged to Discord, Matrix etc. for GrapheneOS. I was very surprised to learn that E2EE 1-1 chats do not work on a desktop device, but rather only when both people are on a phone. Furthermore, it seems that it can only be used when both parties are online, otherwise the secret chat disappears until both are.
Your entire post about E2EE and how the government is trying to undermine it (and they are, and they should be stopped) demonstrates why E2EE is something worth using and fighting for, and Telegram made a very deliberate choice to exclude it from its model. That doesn't mean Telegram is a honeypot, it doesn't even necessarily mean it's malicious. Negligent, perhaps. And because anyone tries to say "but Telegram is more like social media! It doesn't need E2EE!", I'm sorry, but when I go to Telegram's front page and scroll down to "Why Telegram?" I'm met with a little duck that tells me Telegram is private and that's why I should use it. it tells me that it's "heavily encrypted". Why should I, as an average user, understand that means that Telegram has the technical means to retrieve conversations I thought private?
I'm not going to get into politics or characterize Durov as trustworthy or untrustworthy, but it feels wrong to rely on someone's resolve to not compromise my data, rather than technical means.
Not only did Telegram design their app in a way that maximizes "usability" (as if other messengers are unusable) in a way that makes it so conversations for the vast majority of users is not E2EE, not only did Telegram heavily market itself as "private and secure", not only did it continuously try to spread FUD about projects like Signal.
People defending that the way Telegram decided to design its messenger makes sense is pretty wild. You can disagree with Durov being charged with whatever he's being charged, and still think Telegram has done a pretty bad job at protecting its users' data.