It seems like whenever telegram is brought up here, there's a lot of speculation about it not being trustworthy but no concrete evidence.
The client is open source. While not end to end encrypted by default, it shares that property with most messengers. E2E limits search-ability and other features so it's a tradeoff.
I have to wonder if part of why this is mostly brought up is due to the origin of the app being a group with a Russian nationality. That's pretty sad.
The app is damn good. The best messenger app I've used - much better than signal. I'm so disappointed by this attitude.
How does everything which has its origins in US is touched up with fairy duust while anything that may have a remote link with Russia is garbage?
Signal is garbage. They are riding on the coattails of marketing (and that's what investment money does)
2. Notifications in one platform is weird for me.
3. Video quality is extremely bad to the extent of unusable.
4. Completely agree with the lack of settings whether other users with my number can text/call me on Signal.
Also, the evidence that it's not end to end encrypted by default for many operations is out in the open.
I think it has more to do with the fact that there is no known reason for the organisation behind Telegram to provide it. It doesn’t make money from users, it has large operating and development costs, it keeps access to a lot of personal data without regulation, it is not a non-profit funded by donations and being open about their operation…
So most realistic hypotheses about that organization is that it’s shady. There are very few other possible explanations.
But people are deluded that it's as private as Signal or Matrix, which is laughable.
Nginx is currently at 1.21.0
Why wouldn't you care about your load balancer being so outdated? That's over 15 years.
There could be an explanation for this, but I'd have to put some unnecessary trust into it before I get the valid explanation. It is http and no https is offered on that server, which probably indicates that there's no need for TLS, that the communication is secure enough for it not to rely on TLS. But anyway...
This is a weird way to respond to someone using a metaphor to describe how an app makes them feel.
That's not a metaphor, though.
I use an iPhone for iOS development and as a backup phone, I use Android as a daily driver - WhatsApp couldn't sync history when I broke my phone twice in a year and had to switch to iPhone. And I prefer using a desktop app over mobile one, if my phone dies I can still use telegram desktop (this was useful a few times I left my phone in the car and wife drove off with it, I could keep using telegram to message her, my only other option would be messenger at that point).
I don't mind privacy implications of my random chats being read by telegram.
I think a decent compromise would be just enabling it by default for private group chats, since it'd be costly and pretty pointless for public ones.
There's no point to encrypting public group chats. There's a ton of point to encrypting private group chats. They should support it for private chats and it should be the default. Or, better, there should be no way to disable it, even.
End-to-end encrypted group chats are currently in the works.
Source - https://t.me/durovschat/518625
Durov mentioned they've been working on group "secret" chats. Secret is just another term for end-to-end encryption in telegram.
We used to have them in Hungary. I miss them. "Szaki"
And when comparing Telegram and Whatsapp shady-wise, only one of them has obvious many reasons to track you as much as technically and legally possible.
And when it comes to app performance, UX and ease of use - Telegram beats all others with a huge margin.
Privacy controls on voice/video calling, restrictions on who can add me to groups and so on. Intelligent cache without looming storage limits on my device. Efficient application that doesn't drain battery. Cross platform client that even works in modern browser and remains in perfect sync.
I wonder why you are forgetting the virtues and only focused on the "shady aspects".
the missing piece seems to be the type of car.
if i put down a years income for a new car, the 'authorized garage' has it's perks because the value of holesome repairs is probably greater than the cost.
if on the other hand one has a ten year old, used car, which main purpose is a means of transport, that greasy, dusty garage, were the mechanic will let you know that there was only one screw missing and charges you a few bucks is golden.
Facebook derives valuable data about you through WhatsApp in three channels:
- analyzing the content of your discussions before they get encrypted and sent,
- the app acts like a Trojan horse into you smartphone. It collects data such as your device model, geolocation, contacts, text messages with all activation/verification texts from third parties, the list of apps you installed, when you wake up or go to bed, when you sleep or do other things in bed (thank you gyroscopic sensors), etc.
- Through the correlation of real-time data collected from other smartphones, Facebook also acquires who you met, spend time with, where and when.
As you can see, you don't get end to end encryption for philanthropic reasons but because that's simply not where the money is and that's what gullible customers ask for.
end to end encryption is like when you get offered tap water at the restaurant: for many customers, it provides then with a feeling of self satisfaction.
But it doesn't improve the quality of the food at all...
Hope I brought some light in the topic :)
With gdpr, you can at least download all the data they have collected about you. Have you verified your Trojan horse claim?
> WhatsApp still won't be able to access any of your communications or share them with Facebook. Meanwhile, WhatsApp will be able to share user account information like your phone number, logs of how long and how often you use WhatsApp, device identifiers, IP addresses, and other details about your device with Facebook. Plus, WhatsApp can share transaction and payment data, cookies, and location information with Facebook if you grant permission. All of which has been true since 2016.
More is detailed in the WhatsApp privacy policy [1] (emphasis mine):
> We collect information about your activity on our Services, like service-related, diagnostic, and performance information. This includes information about your activity (including how you use our Services, your Services settings, how you interact with others using our Services (including when you interact with a business), and the time, frequency, and duration of your activities and interactions), log files, and diagnostic, crash, website, and performance logs and reports. This also includes information about when you registered to use our Services; the features you use like our messaging, calling, Status, groups (including group name, group picture, group description), payments or business features; profile photo, "about" information; whether you are online, when you last used our Services (your "last seen"); and when you last updated your "about" information.
I suspect nokya was exaggerating somewhat, but only somewhat.
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-privacy-policy-facebook...
For the exaggeration, I would happily answer but I would need to know on which access you felt I exaggerated (except the fact I did not know Apple kept this list only to itself and friends). The data categories I mentioned are quite straightforward and not specifically obtained by WhatsApp only.
I don’t believe this is correct: They may only have to provide data they “control” (in the GDPR-sense of the word; see Art.15,3)
If they merely downloaded it for processing into market segments or even just generated high-value marketing segments directly on the device, they would only have to and be able to give you the list of those segments, and maybe explain broadly that they learned this from “on-line activity”.
If they do exfiltrate everything, they could hold this data for “legitimate interests” such as for lawful intercept, fraud detection, or disaster recovery. If it is not a “normal” business practice to access[1] it they may not be required to reveal that they have it.
Note I am not verifying that Facebook does these things only what my understanding of their obligations are under the GDPR. This does not constitute legal advice, I am not your lawyer, and so on.
[1]: FB’s normal business is selling ads and they don’t typically let ad sales or traffickers access this raw data directly.
1. You only get the data you provided to the service, not the data they derived from your use of the service. Incidentally, this second data set can be as much critical when shared to third parties.
2. You only get the data they kept about you, not the data that resulted from the various transfers to their partner companies and which was thereafter correlated with other databases.
These two sets of data are about the user, but the user never gets to see it, unless it is explicitly requested to the partner companies.
Thanks Trojan horse GDPR.
[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2019_Jakarta_protests_and_rio...
If you’re not willing to sacrifice too much UX for privacy, it kicks the pants off of a lot alternatives while still, ostensibly, not being the worst offender privacy-wise.
That being said, WhatsApp is like the authorized garage where you know that you'll get the service which is officially recognized (by the government) and will keep your car's value "at its best", but which screws you over in so many ways.
Everything else is somewhere in between these two platforms.