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.

      Xtreix I don't really see any political influence here. To me it's about censorship and privacy. It's not convenient for government officials to see these discussions, because they are usually on the loosing side.

      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.

      locked As @matchboxbananasynergy said, it all depends on you (Telegram) knowing of the commission of a crime and not providing information to the authorities. With E2EE, the network knows nothing of the commission of the crime, so there is no reason to arrest the natural person responsible for the network. It then depends on the LEA to try and penetrate the system if they have substantial suspicion that it is used for criminal matters. Just the way your conversations might be listened to it you are suspect of terrorism ... Just like you and me ...

      I've been reading this thread (before and after some posts being removed by moderators). I just want to say that I'm truly frustrated (but mostly perplexed) by the number of posts from people on here that don't seem to grasp the inherent dangers of censorship by big brother and who naively don't understand how free speech is the bedrock of a free society...especially when the right to privacy and the right to free speech go hand in hand.

      Free society means being able to have a free exchange of thoughts and ideas. You can't speak your mind unless you feel safe to do so, especially when the world is filled with evil people that want to silence or "make disappear" those that disagree with them. Governments are not shy about putting people on lists.

      Privacy is one tool to make people feel safe enough to speak freely. That's why we say the right to privacy is a human right, just like how free speech is an "inalienable right."

      We speak about threat models a lot. And weirdly, the same people speaking about not trusting XYZ tech company or their government - who are recommending encrypted and open-source software to protect their speech and expression...simultaneously support authoritarian restrictions on speech and expression??

      It's also strange seeing many of the tired and debunked arguments ("objectionable" content, think of the children, terrorists, criminals, etc) from people on here when these arguments have already been understood to be poor or even fake excuses to conceal governments' desire to instill mass surveillance, issue uninterrupted government propaganda, and silence dissenters.

      It's very strange that people on a forum for a privacy focused operating system, who celebrate how difficult if is for the government to crack GrapheneOS, are quick to insult another privacy focused project for not willingly allowing governments to spy on their users. Sure, Telegram's itself was poorly designed as a private messenger compared to other private messengers, but people on here are also attacking the company's free speech and user privacy philosophy in general, stating that it should have been doing more to censor users at government's convenience, which would also inherently erode user privacy.

      It was less than 10 years ago that ordinary people widely celebrated Apple for publicly refusing to cooperate with the FBI in the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack. And this was in the aftermath of an actual terrorist attack when emotions were high - when people were desperate and more likely to support authoritarian mass surveillance and population control measures. Not even 10 years later and now even so-called privacy enthusiasts welcome authoritarianism because they're offended by things people say online.

      This is scary and sad.

        • Edited

        Sbpr You explicitly write about things that Telegram has never supported and protected in reality, users are deceived and its CEO has created and propagated fear, uncertainty and doubt about Signal which is truly private and which really allows freedom of expression. I won't write this if Telegram had presented itself as a social network like Discord but that's not the case, Telegram has always presented itself as a private messaging app, which is completely false in practice.

        • [deleted]

        Just please lock this thread. It doesn't really belong here and it throws me out of balance. Not that I will ever use Telegram, ever, and I don't wish to say things that might win me another permanent ban. Thank you.

          locked

          Why does France have jurisdiction to charge Durov?

          There are three possible reasons for this, choose the one that fits you best:

          1. This service has an effect in France;
          2. Universal jurisdiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction);
          3. Pavel Durov is a French citizen!

          My biggest concern is that there are other motives for this […]

          The breakdown of the inculpation is pretty revealing, in my opinion, but to each his own sensibility, I suppose. Understand I’m only explaining or repeating basic things that ought to be told. I see no point in going off on a tangent just yet, and to give my opinion, especially when I read this thread – too many commonplaces…

          He was a beacon of democracy in the eyes of the west.

          More or less, but I won’t disagree.

          locked

          Instead, they arrest him when he arrives in France by surprise.

          It’s usually more effective and efficient to arrest people by surprise and not warn them not to come; trapping them is also quite convenient. Where’s the issue here?

          raccoondad social media sites have the right (and responsibility) to remove bigoted content

          Who should be the arbiter of what is considered "bigoted" and what isn't?

            matchboxbananasynergy What's the issue, then? The word has been used very liberally in the past 8 years or so, and often to try to shut down someone's opposition.

            Sbpr Thank you, you are stating it perfectly in my opinion. This post needs to be stickied at the top of the forum.

            matchboxbananasynergy

            While I understand the argument you're trying to make, if you need others to spell out what is bigoted and what isn't, there's a big issue there.

            You clearly don't understand the argument...

            Sbpr It's also strange seeing many of the tired and debunked arguments ("objectionable" content, think of the children, terrorists, criminals, etc) from people on here when these arguments have already been understood to be poor or even fake excuses to conceal governments' desire to instill mass surveillance, issue uninterrupted government propaganda, and silence dissenters.

            Debunked? Telegram is full of all of the above. We can discuss what responsibilities platforms ought and ought not to have, but there can't be a proper conversation if we can't even acknowledge that this type of content routinely went unchecked on Telegram. If you want to make the argument that it "comes with the territory" of a "free speech" platform, sure, do that.

            Sbpr It's very strange that people on a forum for a privacy focused operating system, who celebrate how difficult if is for the government to crack GrapheneOS, are quick to insult another privacy focused project for not willingly allowing governments to spy on their users. Sure, Telegram's itself was poorly designed as a private messenger compared to other private messengers, but people on here are also attacking the company's free speech and user privacy philosophy in general, stating that it should have been doing more to censor users at government's convenience, which would also inherently erode user privacy.

            People are celebrating the technical achievement of a private company's forensic tool (in the case you're referring to, Cellebrite) not being able to get into Pixels running GrapheneOS. It is understood that you cannot protect privacy selectively. That's why you can't weaken E2EE (because that affects everyone, despicable criminals and persecuted dissidents alike). Same with a device, you make it sure not because you want to protect criminals or heinous people, but because you understand that a secure device has to be secure for everyone.

            Telegram is implementing no such thing (for the vast majority of users, secret chats are barely used by anyone). Put governments aside for a moment, because I don't think anybody participating in this thread is an official representative of one. It's one thing for someone to advocate for weakening E2EE in a messenger, or disk encryption or forensic resistance in an OS, and another for someone to say that when you operate a non-E2EE platform which allows for content moderation, that a genuine effort should be made to purge such platform of criminal content. It is baffling to me that the same people who in this thread are making arguments "for the children" based on their ideologies, fail to acknowledge the kinds of vile things Telegram was widely known for. Will they continue to occur elsewhere should Telegram cease to exist, or should it actually make a genuine effort to moderate its platform? Sadly yes, but that doesn't mean that Telegram gets a pass when it isn't doing anything about it.

            I'll say it once again, and maybe this time it'll at least stick for someone. You can have opinions that are nuanced. Don't trick yourself into picking a side and defending that side to the death. Should Durov be arrested? That's up to everyone's opinion. Are the laws about "licensed cryptology" in France ridiculous? I believe so. Does that mean that Telegram is some holy platform that can do no wrong and which has operated perfectly? In my opinion, absolutely not, and nobody is doing anybody any favors by taking either side to its logical conclusion where you have to defend indefensible things just to be "right".

            If you're going to make the argument that anybody who has issues with Telegram, how it markets itself, and how it operates is against free speech, pro censorship and many other things, I think you're losing a genuine chance to have a discussion about the topic that isn't projecting your beliefs on others.

            Conversely, for the people on the other end, by villainizing everyone who sees this as an attack on free speech, it would serve you well to actually listen to those peoples' concerns and consider whether they have merit.

            What is scary and sad, is that people are letting their ideology and beliefs, political and otherwise, completely sway their opinion on this issue, and it absolutely shows. We're not having a discussion about this topic, we're having a proxy politics debate, some of you just don't see it yet.

            Sbpr . Sure, Telegram's itself was poorly designed as a private messenger compared to other private messengers, but people on here are also attacking the company's free speech and user privacy philosophy in general, stating that it should have been doing more to censor users at government's convenience, which would also inherently erode user privacy.

            They deserve zero respect for their philosophies and supposed privacy focus when their product doesn't live up to those goals. Those words are just empty marketing, while Telegram's existence has actively undermined their own users privacy and the adoption of E2EE as a whole.

            Very very few people are the sort of free speech absolutists who think publicly available channels for ISIS recruitment and trading CP should be tolerated or seen as inevitable. Look into the "paradox of intolerance" for an opposing philosophical concern.

            admin locked the discussion .

            We're going to be locking it again and leaving it locked because as expected it ends up being a political debate outside the scope of what's permitted on our forum.