you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 132 points 7 months ago (6 children)

On a Telegram group chat. In other words, in plain text on a popular social network.

Regulators, take note about how encryption isn't preventing you from finding crimes. (As if the Epstein emails weren't enough evidence.)

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    was the group actually unencrypted or are you just assuming that because it is the default setting in telegram?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    They're probably assuming the chats aren't encrypted because telegram doesn't encrypt those. Source

    Multi-device End-to-end encrypted chats are a mess

    The concept of End-to-End Encryption has no limits for the number of communicating devices. However, if you want to access your end-to-end encrypted chats from multiple devices, you’re facing many technical difficulties, especially when it comes to connecting new devices, loading chat history and restoring backups.

    Most of our competitors (notably, Whatsapp and iMessage) solve these problems in ways that make their end-to-end encryption useless (this is a big topic, so requires a separate manual [poster note, that link goes to a 'manual' that hasn't been filled out lol]). To solve them in a secure way, you’d have to sacrifice usability and some of the features you’re used to – the result would never be as fluent and simple as what we offer in Cloud Chats.

    Telegram says they don't encrypt them and tries to imply that people who actually know how to use cryptography failed to solve this problem because they couldn't solve it with their shitty self rolled 'encryption' algo that hasn't been peer reviewed (unlike the signal protocol)

  • source
  • parent