“Telegram is not a private messenger. There’s nothing private about it. It’s the opposite. It’s a cloud messenger where every message you’ve ever sent or received is in plain text in a database that Telegram the organization controls and has access to it”

“It’s like a Russian oligarch starting an unencrypted version of WhatsApp, a pixel for pixel clone of WhatsApp. That should be kind of a difficult brand to operate. Somehow, they’ve done a really amazing job of convincing the whole world that this is an encrypted messaging app and that the founder is some kind of Russian dissident, even though he goes there once a month, the whole team lives in Russia, and their families are there.”

" What happened in France is they just chose not to respond to the subpoena. So that’s in violation of the law. And, he gets arrested in France, right? And everyone’s like, oh, France. But I think the key point is they have the data, like they can respond to the subpoenas where as Signal, for instance, doesn’t have access to the data and couldn’t respond to that same request.  To me it’s very obvious that Russia would’ve had a much less polite version of that conversation with Pavel Durov and the telegram team before this moment"

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 196 points 8 months ago (19 children)

Why is this interview happening inside a sauna?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If you watch the video - its explained starting at 1:13, Moxie built it himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPRi7mAGp7I

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 26 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    Why is this interview happening inside a sauna?

    It's his personal sauna. He built it himself.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/DNV-qUfPZJ0/?hl=en

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Why did he invite the hot reporter chick to his sauna? would be the follow-up question...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's a sauna on a boat. She's out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. You know, she looks around and what does she see? Nothin' but open ocean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Like in a sauna you should be completely exposed or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago*

    I've been saying this for years. Telegram is a social media app.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Why are they sitting in a sauna?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Build sauna, host interview in sauna, sauna is tax writeoff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Depending on country you may be able to subsidize only part of the sauna as a business expense if it's a sauna at your home office, but actually hosting interviews in it would for sure help your case in claiming it to be operated for business.

    I don't know how it is in the US though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 70 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Remember how Telegram said they would stop providing Chinese authorities with user data during the Hong Kong protests. Implying that they were doing it at some stage.

    Also remember how the FBI have said in several leaked documents they hate signal because the only data they get is when the user signed up and the last time they were online, nothing else.

    Which app would you rather use?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Random mention of Matrix because I feel i should

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Nothing federated is private, mind. Even with E2EE on in private rooms for specific messages, Matrix still relies on a constant information feed during use that can be used to deduce who is messaging whom and when, even if the content of the message itself is encrypted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    how much data do the FBI get from telegram? do you think the russian owner (who got arrested in france for refusing to make changes demanded of him by glowing authorities) is very likely to give any of your info over to american 3 letter agencies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I think it probably doesn't matter what he wants, it only matters that the data exists at all. If the owner is not giving permission, that's one thing. But I'm inclined to believe that those American 3-letter agencies aren't the sort to ask permission.

    All it takes is one disgruntled systems engineer who thinks they don't get paid enough. An agency comes knocking with a sizable offer of cash, and they'll get the backdoor they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    What is not mentioned... there's no privacy when the device itself is compromised. For instance, Android phones can read and phone home data from your notifications. In that case, any messenger app wouldn't be private from Google's eyes.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    There's a commonly used Russian metaphor "to not see the forest behind the trees".

    What you are calling a device is in fact a system. It's a local system, that you are carrying in your hand, but it's functioning due to a very complex global system which is not. That device in itself is like a 1960s' town in complexity. In itself, but there's also the global system.

    And these are a result of quite a lot of people employed by various organizations with hierarchies and dependencies. And most of the power in those organizations doesn't want you to have privacy and autonomy as much and when you want. If you want those, you should produce your own hardware and everything above it. Or build organizations interested in your full privacy and autonomy which will do that. It's about structure, so just creating a few of them (a goal hardly reachable in itself) with manifests saying "we want to be good" won't change anything.

    So, if you were wondering why contemporaries of Stalin's regime were reluctant to divorce it with Marxism and call it something else, - that's similar to this. They really wanted to believe there's a Marxist superpower, just like some people wanted to believe Google is a good corporation, and before that some people wanted to believe Apple is a counterculture corporation, and so on. And, at various moments in time and space, in various dimensions, sometimes these were. Just like in some ways the British Empire was really bringing civilization to the world.

    The more life and diversity there is, the likelier we are to have good things. That doesn't mean we'll ever have full privacy, full autonomy, fully civilized, peaceful and honorable world, and so on. We won't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I think that metaphor is quite universal because it's also used very commonly in English and Estonian at the very least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's common in Russia. It's common a lot of places, but it's common in Russia

    But yeah, I've used that and the inverse depending on the context plenty of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Well, that something common in Russia as a metaphor is also common in Estonia wouldn't be a surprise, but in English seems a bit less common. Anyway, that wasn't the point of my comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago

    They've done a really amazing job of convincing the world that this is an encrypted messaging app.

    This is a play on people's naivety. It is an encrypted messaging app in as much as regular messages are encrypted between the client and the server. It's just that this achieves nothing for the user in terms of privacy unless you can both completely trust the provider (you shouldn't) and be confident that the back-end can't be compromised (you can't).

    They do also have "secret chats" that are apparently E2E encrypted, but you'd be mad at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt without at least looking at independent security audits of the client.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago

    When you build a backdoor into your "encrypted messenger" its just a surveillance app

  • source
  • [–] 137 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Dude for the first 15s I thought this is porn

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 8 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 37 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    How I hate that saunas are associated with porn and sex. It's not supposed to be sexual and more importantly it's an awful, just terrible place to have sex

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I don't know man, those benches are nice for a variety of positions. Plus, you are already naked..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Just trust me on this one, 80C+ room just isn't the place for that sort of exercise. And it's not like your heart rate isn't up already lol. It's a terrible experience

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    And WhatsApp is worse. It fails to include a libre software license text file. We do not control it. It is never secure.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    It fails to include a libre software license text file.

    I don't think this really makes sense as the leading point. More like "It's run by Meta and who knows what kind of backdoor they put in"

    Yeah, it uses the signal protocol, but who's to say they don't have a secret member of every conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    I think WhatsApps biggest risk is the metadata. They know every group you are in and who else is in that group. They know when messages are sent and to who. They know where you are at all times, and probably have access to your libraries as well if you didn't specifically restrict that. It's a huge trove of data, which one would assume is freely shared with governments on request.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I have a credible source that says they're scanning media being sent. They have a CSAM or related department. No idea how that works but I heard it exists. Can't find anything about it on the internet however to confirm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I wouldn't say it's worse. It technically claims to have end-to-end encryption while telegram doesn't. I wouldn't trust it at all because it's from Meta, but I don't see how you can say the one at least claiming to have encryption is worse than the one that just flat out doesn't have it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    End to end encryption is worth nothing when WhatsApp have access to the encryption key. And the fact that all photos you see on WhatsApp are saved on your phone without encryption means that it's only encrypted when it's sent, nowhere else.

    I also have very suspicious examples of advertising linked to WhatsApp conversations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, it's not good. We're talking about if it is worse than telegram though. Not if it's simply good or not.

    I thought I was pretty fucking clear on that in my original comment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    I stopped using Telegram as soon as I learned their chats aren't E2E encrypted unless you create a secret chat. Their advertising is so misleading. Even WhatsApp is more private than Telegram.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The body language in this video is wild.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    His NAME is MARLINSPIKE?? Like the ancestral home of Captain Haddock from Tintin?! We really are living in a simulation

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    I don't think, at this point, people who use Telegram do it for their privacy. I still use it, but I don't trust it one bit more than I trust WhatsApp.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    As much as I'd like to favor foss and federated messenger apps, telegram isn't as much garbage as whatsapp:

    1.The client is somewhat open source and have forks like Forkgram, Materialgram and unoffical clients like Telegrand.
    2. Telegram isn't E2EE by default but at least it doesn't lie about it and have E2EE secret chat when nessesary, that means crucial chats stay on your device and the rest stay on their database recoverable and syncable across devices.
    (Yes, whatsapp supposedly is E2EE but we can't know for sure, it's closed-source.)
    3. You can use telegram as a cloud service with only 2GB per file limit, unlike whatsapp.
    (There's even a third-party app that utilise this as a cloud gallery.)
    4. Even tho telegram has ads in large channels, telegram isn't funded by a greedy big-corp and it doesn't datamine you, ads are based on the channel's topic.

    Yes, in terms of privacy, telegram isn't the best option, Signal, Session, XMPP, Matrix, or SimpleX have better privacy features, less linkability and E2EE by default but telegram is very mainstream and got more publicity, making it the whatsapp alternative it advertises itself as-is.
    Publicity doesn't make a better messenger app, but for what it tries to do, it's adoptable for simple users, doubles as cloud storage and is more secure than the garbage being whatsapp.

    Immigrating users to different apps is a headache on it's own, but if they know of telegram and it's not privacy invasive, that's not bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Isn't it possible to verify WhatsApp encryption with packet sniffing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, but how would you know Meta doesn't have a copy of your encryption key (ex: when you sign up) and keeps a copy of your encrypted messages somewhere?
    AFAIK your encryption key resides as whatsapp's data folder but since whatsapp is closed-source you can't guarantee that whatsapp gave the encryption key to Meta's server at some point when it was created; (or it was created on their servers and sent to your device.)

    One would just assume the encryption key is made on your device and never sent to Meta and all the E2EE messages aren't kept on Meta's server after they are sent.

    Again, Meta is a company that is profiting on targeted advetising and selling user data, how would whatsapp be a free service without any profit?

    Also, Here's someone who saw their whatsapp chat used for targeted ads on them in case you have doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (1 child)
    1. I can't find a link to this but I'm sure I've read an article about what happens when you "report" a message someone sent to you in WhatsApp. In this case some reviewer at Meta will look at your message and determine if it violated the rules. IIRC the article talked about them most likely being added to the chat but not visible.
    2. There's a recent lawsuit that shows that Meta can view your messages through internal systems: https://proton.me/blog/whatsapp-encryption-lawsuit
    3. Meta's AI assistant in WhatsApp leaves more questions about privacy. How closed-off is the data used in this AI from other parts of Meta's services?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Again, as I said, whatsapp doesn't feel like a genuine messenger app as much as an oversimplified garbage made for tracking users on the background for profiting.
    Even the deal of "giving" Llama LLMs (Meta AI) to everyone feels sketchy and look abusive the way it is pushed to users.

    Likewise all of meta's services, the only catch with whatsapp that it used to be good and it's a well-spread application, that's why they bought it instead of improving FB's messenger, as meta want to benefit of it's naive userbase who think whatsapp is "As fine as ever";

    To you, publicity is nothing important and it doesn't make a good product, to meta however, publicity is "everything" and it shall be all-time high, they have more analytical data about their userbase and have a good idea of what they would do and what decision they would take.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah don't get me wrong, I despise meta and their facade pretending WhatsApp is private. Your example is evidence but not proof but it does not mean I doubt you because it really doesn't surprise me. Gmail likes to pretend it's secure and private too because data in transit is supposedly encrypted but they can still just read absolutely everything in your inbox themselves

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Just...
    Don't let them deceive you;

    If you must use deceitful software like Gmail, Whatsapp, Discord, office or whatever, just try your best not to leak your personal data on them, and if you can hinder the tracking, do so.

    If you can use other (preferably FOSS) software, do so, there's plenty of solutions out there and most of them are free, and sometimes selfhost-able.

    Google, Meta, Microsoft or whatever corp can lie about security or privacy all they want, but in the end, they only fool themself thinking their monetary practices aren't obvious and they can fool everyone, trust is a hard thing to earn and they can't earn it with fraud.

    The product mostly show itself, and you have to go around it to know what's it's deal, if you prefer to not do so, you can search if any security researcher or analyst did investigate the product; For example Google claims Chrome browser is "safe" and "secure" dispute them giving so much trackable APIs for websites, and having a horrable default permissions, and don't forget the "Manifest V3" transition just to remove ads (and trackers) blockers like uBlock Origin.
    You don't need solid proof to know what is what.

    And then you just type " Foss Chrome Alternatives" or "Private Browsers" on a search engine like DDG where you can find many articles to help you find one (like this) and you'd be done.

    Forget about ""Others"" right now, your well-being matters the most.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    16 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.world view that post