• Dyskolos
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    Great. That would probably mean a ban for Telegram would also be needed, as they’re known to not bow to local surveillance-laws.

    I’m all for doing everything to find effing pedos, but I’ll doubt it will help catch one. Who would be so dumb to do illegal things on the surface-web?

    • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      161 year ago

      not really, cos telegram is not end to end encrypted unless you do not use group chats, and deep dive into the menu to enable secret chat for every individual contact.

      I have no idea why telegram got this secure reputation. it is literally the absolute worst of the bunch, security wise

      • Dyskolos
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -41 year ago

        Encryption wasn’t relevant in the context of the surveillance-law, as having ways to decrypt it will be required then and hence make it useless.

        Telegram does not bow. They won’t bend their knee to a government wanting them to plant a bot. They then will just be banned.

        Besides, there is end2end-encryption if you want, where is the problen? Noone forces you to use the cloud. And it’s also not “hidden deep”.

        • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          you have to open chat, click profile picture of contact, and then click the three dot menu from there, where you will find the option. It is buried deep down.

          • Dyskolos
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            If that’s “buried deep” to you, then maybe that technology isn’t your thing. Beside that was totally irrelevant to the topic at all. If you don’t like tgram, use something else. It’s not a pro/contra encryption discussion, it’s anti-observation.

            If a messenger is still alive after this law gets real, then you have your answer regarding security and privacy.

            • @vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              the title of the post has secure encryption and chat in the title. but irrelevant, yeah.

              Also it’s at least 4 taps (and you get reduced functionality too) than most other apps, which require 0

              • Dyskolos
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                I think, you didn’t get the real impact of the meaning of this post if you fight about encryption-capabilities of some clients.

                Wow. 4 taps. This is really above the horizon of most boomers 😁 (of which you surely aren’t of)

                Seriously, who cares. If you don’t like it, use another client. Telegram rocks and has a lot of features i would never want to miss. It’s not all about privacy and privacy. Smart people know when to use which tool at what occasion at their disposal. It’s about having even the option to do so at all, which the law mentioned in the OP is going to fuck away from us. But sure, go ahead and fight your peasant client-wars. Omg tgram is not the most secure client, i gotta fight it until the last secure messengers are gone at all. Happy whatsapping then.