>whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously.

And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?

I cannot speak for everybody, but for me the lack of encryption - thus allowing state actors to intercept - is a far better trade off than the explicit sharing of data with advertisers.

Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state. Yet I do not trust advertisers and other entities who seek to influence my opinion. I'm sure that for those who live in states where the government is viewed as adversarial then Signal would be a better choice.

That's the thing, though: Telegram cannot be intercepted by state actors. They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.

> Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state.

Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?

  > They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.

From a technical perspective, whoever is running those servers can access the data. That aspect is far more important than the legal hurdles.

  > Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?

Yes, my own. But I understand that not everybody has that privilege.

Er, sorry, I meant "every", because you don't trust yours with Telegram – you trust a more or less random one, depending on their jurisdiction hopping location of the day.

I see. Well, you are correct. I'm sure that a particularly motivated entity with access to my Telegram could find something on me, and coercing foreigners with blackmail could be a good strategy for any government.

I understand and respect your motive for saying that telegram has no encryption. At the same time I cannot stop hating you for improper use of words.

I wish there was a simple and catchy word for describing a "vulnerable to the government" encryption

For me, transport encrypted (e.g. TLS) is the bare minimum everything going over a wire should be encrypted with, so encryption in the context of messenger is for me always about E2E. As far as I know, Google and Apple don't even allow apps to use unecrypted HTTP if dev's want them to be in their respective app store.

As a term, e2e encryption is quite short, and is also easy to search for, if someone does not know what it is.

Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"? There is transport encryption in MTProto since the beginning. There are e2ee chats for those who want them.

>Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"?

I don't think we should. In the context of messaging at least, encryption should mean E2E encryption.

Bragging about client-to-server encryption is pointless nowadays, when 99% of the internet is already encrypted this way.

That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background. I find it dishonest, even more so because Telegram actually does offer e2ee chats - and 1:1 voice/video chats are already e2ee, for what it's worth.

>That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background.

Not as misleading and potentially harmful as saying "Telegram is encrypted" as a blanket statement, because: 1. as I said, the client-to-server encryption is not noteworthy (almost everything has that) and it shouldn't be enough for privacy-conscious people. 2. even though Telegram does offer some e2e encryption too, its availability is quite limited and not representative of the typical Telegram usage.

Sure, I was being too dismissive there. But I don't like how Telegram gets brought up as a "private messenger", in the same context as fully e2e-encrypted messengers like Signal or even Whatsapp.

For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server. And Telegram can only be used with a phone number, so in terms of anonymity it's even worse than those.

> For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server.

This is absolutely true and a nice comparison at that, thanks! I will try to use that in the future.

Most of my non-technical friends using Telegram are convinced that it's more secure than WhatsApp. Even many non-technical news outlets are propagating these claims. It makes me incredibly sad.

They are promising a usable Signal, but instead are providing a Discord with mandatory phone number registration.

Why resort to such dishonesty? Just let the product speak for itself.

Is it? In WhatsApp all of your messages are E2EE. In Telegram it’s an option, only works in 1:1, doesn’t support desktop, and uses homegrown encryption.

> Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"?

No, because defaults matter. Users have a habit of never changing them.

It definitely is a Shibboleth: Everybody recommending it to me so far has done so either due to usability (which I get) or "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".

The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.

  > "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".

Sure, you'll find people believing and spreading misleading statements everywhere. Encrypted, compared to Whatsapp, is wrong. But secure? Sure. I much prefer governments getting access to my data via snooping than advertising companies being spoon fed my data with the intention of influencing my opinion.

Telegram does get access to your data, and them getting into advertisement is literally the topic of this discussion.

As a result, governments aren't getting access to Telegram, advertisers are.

I think that you should read the fine article. It seems that you are assuming things that are incorrect.

I mean, Telegram also supports fully-fledged microblogging (with personal channels) in a way Whatsapp just doesn't.