and an attack on encrypted messaging
lmao. It's barely encrypted and what little of it that is (one-to-one DMs) have never been audited in a way where Telegram haven't just either ignored the results or moved the goalposts.
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
51 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
70 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I heard that in USA Telegram is used mostly by conservatives, trans-haters and drug dealers. But in Russia where I was born and where I have been living until the war, Telegram was a single source of alternative news and the main tool for opposition to putin. I had a talk with an Iranian guy recently and he told me the same: in Iran Telegram is the only source of non-state-propaganda news.
I do not care that Durov is just a billionaire who makes money on the trend of privacy. But I remember how Telegram successfully fought against attempt of blocking in Russia in 2018 by providing regular updates and using different techniques to avoid blocking. An attack on Telegram for me is an attack on the latest opposition to putin, khamenei, lukashenko and others.
Telegram successfully fought against attempt of blocking in Russia in 2018 by providing regular updates and using different techniques to avoid blocking.
I too heard Russia claimed they could not block it. Could be deliberate theatre to bolster its reputation.
It seems Russia has a back door key into Telegram.
Edit: Russia is complaining about the arrest.
Pavel Durov has visited Russia more than 50 times since his "exile" in 2014
It may not be just the Kremlin. I've had several cases where I wrote about something in a Telegram chat, stuff I had never talked about before, and in a matter of seconds started seeing related ads on Facebook.
Alternatively, it could be the keyboard leaking all text, or I could have some other spyware, but I've only had that happen to me between Telegram and Facebook.
Then again, Telegram group chats are unencrypted, and personal chats are unencrypted by default.
Telegram group chats are unencrypted
Not quite true. They are server-side encrypted, not end-to-end. Still bad and I had no idea until I looked it up just now (thanks to you).
I use Gboard keyboard on my phone which undermines my Signal privacy. I could use my laptop instance of Signal to prevent leakage.
Great article to let people understand the problematic aspect of Telegram
I have no idea what's going on with all of this but the news said that he was arrested for child pornography, so in my opinion if there was a hundred other things that he did right this one bad thing out does them all if that is what he did.
Where I am, the news said:
- "Telegram is a social network" (it isn't)
- "that allows terrorism from Russia and Iran" (it's used by Russian and Iranian oppositors)
- "drug trafficking" (because it's encrypted, I guess)
- "fraud" (scams are also part of email and the web)
- "money laundering" (...what?)
- "piracy" (sigh...)
- "and distribution of child pornography." (so does email)
- "It doesn't honor removal requests from the film/music industry organizations" (that's piracy twice)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
Terrorists, pedophiles/child molesters, organized crime like drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, and money launderers are cited commonly
Do we have a BINGO?
underrated comment
Maybe don’t blindly trust the news?
The French government said that Telegram is being used to distribute illegal material like child pornography. He is not accused of distributing it himself.
He's accused of tolerating such distribution even after being alerted of the fact so, yes, he's accused of distributing it. For an online platform "we didn't know about it because we don't moderate proactively" is a valid defence, "authorities told us about it but we didn't feel like doing anything about it because can't be bothered / frozen peaches" isn't.
I don't understand how authoritarian leaning conservatives and free speech absolutists align most of the time.
They are the same people most of the time. The freeze peach folks only believe in free speech for themselves
Thanks for posting this context. I’ve been wondering about this aspect of this event