this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
918 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

32111 readers
598 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chat control is back on the agenda again and the works is kept in secret.

Link to document

Take Action!

Edit: More information about the meeting

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 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 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 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.