89
submitted 8 months ago by someone@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

The company has updated its FAQ page to say that private chats are no longer shielded from moderation.

Telegram has quietly removed language from its FAQ page that said private chats were protected from moderation requests. The change comes nearly two weeks after its CEO, Pavel Durov, was arrested in France for allegedly allowing “criminal activity to go on undeterred on the messaging app.”

Earlier today, Durov issued his first public statement since his arrest, promising to moderate content more on the platform, a noticeable change in tone after the company initially said he had “nothing to hide.”

“Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform,” he wrote in the statement shared on Thursday. “That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.”

Translation: Durov is completely compromised and will do whatever NATO tells him to do. Do not trust in the security of Telegram, which frankly was never that good to begin with. And do not trust anything else even remotely connected to the company or Durov personally.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] edge@hexbear.net 36 points 8 months ago

Are private chats not end to end encrypted? They should be, so it shouldn't be possible to moderate.

If not, it sounds like the app is a complete joke.

[-] Shinji_Ikari@hexbear.net 24 points 8 months ago

They never were and never advertised as such. There's secret chat's that only work from the originating device to the receiving device that are e2e.

Group chats were never encrypted because they're convenience chats, not places to tell secrets. IE you can look back at all the history and shared files from any device you log into. You can search for a message from 2 years ago to remember something that was discussed previously.

I'm a big telegram defender because it's the nicest cross platform chat app to stop your parents from creating the n+1th mms group chat from their iphones, torturing all android users. It's also not a Meta app, and doesn't have the nerd requirements of an actual encrypted chat.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 10 points 8 months ago
[-] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 10 points 8 months ago

Lol and Telegram seems to be throwing in the towel.

Telegram is also CIA

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

Have you used both of them?

Signal UI/UX is like using a cheap SMS app. This is a big deal for getting people to use it.

It doesn't sync to other devices (it does, but it's manual).

Telegram I can grab the device in front of me and it shows exactly what is on any other device.

As does any XMPP chat.

Alternatively there's Teleguard, by SwissCows. They claim e2e for all comms, noting stored on their servers. It's like using Telegram.

Have you used both of them?

Yes, I really like the Signal UX. It does everything I need it to and very few pointless gimmicks. Telegram feels a lot more scuffed and further from a normal SMS app. Granted I've never used either on desktop.

[-] coolusername@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Signal is CIA. Stop promoting it.

[-] Shinji_Ikari@hexbear.net 4 points 8 months ago

I use it for work and I find it clunky and an overall mid messaging experience. It feels like groupme from 7 years ago. I know the "nothing to hide trope" is shit, but sometimes you actually are saying little of substance and you want a nice user experience day-to-day rather than sacrifice features and UX for a privacy boogieman.

[-] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 23 points 8 months ago

It will be interesting to see if anyone on the payroll at Signal is subjected to the same process.

[-] someone@hexbear.net 34 points 8 months ago

I don't trust Signal one bit. Never have. The original creator Moxie Marlinspike has been neck-deep in Silicon Valley culture for decades. During his tenure in charge of Signal's technical development he made a lot of strange decisions. Forcing his "Mobilecoin" cryptocoin scam in the standard Signal app. Denigrating the concept of warrant canaries. Refusing to allow non-Signal-owned servers to communicate with Signal apps. Requiring that only Signal apps distributed on Google and Apple's app stores be allowed to communicate with Signal-owned servers, etc. Requiring phone numbers for account creation. I don't buy for a moment that he or his colleagues are pro-privacy activists.

[-] Vent@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago

Mobilecoin

It's dumb, but it's also not really marketed and is easy to forget that it exists even when using the app daily.

Denigrating warrant canaries

He consulted with lawyers and they said that removing/not updating a warrant canary would likely have the same legal consequences as violating the court order by simply announcing the subpoena. Also, a warrant canary is nearly useless even in the ideal case because it just says that they got a secret warrant, not what the subpoena was for or any other details. You wouldn't know the exact date, what was requested, or even what country made the request. And it becomes even less useful after receiving the first secret warrant.

Also, not all subpoenas are secret. Signal posts all government requests, including the full documents of all communication between Signal and the government, at https://signal.org/bigbrother

And, since Signal is E2EE, they don't have any useful data to share when they receive a warrant anyway.

Refusing to allow non-signal servers

Signal isn't federated and it's not intended to be. If you're using a private server, you'd only be able to talk to people also on your servers. If that's a feature you want, you can simply choose a different messaging solution. It's a design decision, not a security flaw.

Only allowing Google and Apple app stores

Here's an official apk download: https://signal.org/android/apk

Requiring phone numbers for account creation

Yeah, it's kinda weird. They started as an SMS app which obviously requires a phone number and just haven't got rid of the requirement. They added usernames and hide your phone number by default, so you can at least message others without sharing your phone number.

In the end, phone numbers streamline signup and account management and Signal is meant as a texting replacement, not a social media/texting hybrid like Telegram or Discord, so phone numbers help the less tech-literate to use the app. As long as the encryption is sound, phone numbers don't really add that much security risk and the point is to bring high-grade encrypted messaging to everyone, not to be an ultra-anonymous hardened messaging platform to avoid state-level targeted attacks.

[-] ShariaLawZ@hexbear.net 8 points 8 months ago
[-] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

fedposting Let us place this man in the middle thingy here. Our built in text analyzer to flag topics there. And thanks for cooperation bougie-wink

Oh and backdoor access to your severs.

[-] someone@hexbear.net 14 points 8 months ago

Are private chats not end to end encrypted? They should be, so it shouldn't be possible to moderate.

Telegram has a few different chat type options:

  • Public, which is what it sounds like, available for groups. Server-side encryption, so Telegram (the company) can see everything.

  • Private, which is like an unlisted/unsearchable public group chat, same encryption limitations.

  • Secret, which are strictly one-on-one, and default to server-side encryption. The user can select end-to-end encryption for these on a per-chat basis. It can't be made the default.

If not, it sounds like the app is a complete joke.

Oh it always has been from a security perspective. They use a homegrown E2EE known-to-be-flawed protocol called MTProto instead of using a professionally-audited one like in Matrix.

[-] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If I were to choose one app, it would probably be Matrix due to the fact that is supports E2EE not only in private messages, but in chatrooms, and due to the fact that you can self-host it (this is a simple requirement which all these other "apps" fail). But it Matrix isn't a panacea either. From my understanding, while the cryptography is considered to be sound, the protocol itself reveals a lot of metadata. If I were going to use Matrix for ninja shit, it would absolutely not be on a publicly federated server. It would be a private, unadvertized server which only the cool kids get told about.

If it were a matter of life or death, the only thing I'd really trust is GPG and dead drops.

[-] someone@hexbear.net 5 points 8 months ago

I agree on Matrix. It's not ideal right now but it's easily better than the alternatives. I don't trust systems that can't be self-hosted.

If it were a matter of life or death, the only thing I'd really trust is GPG and dead drops.

I like the cut of your jib.

[-] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

For reference, the metadata leaked is: Sender id, recipient id, if the recipient saw the message, when the message was delivered, all reactions and the length of the message.

For example, this is what the server sees in an encrypted message:

type": "m.room.encrypted" "event_id": "$UE04iZS0h4U-_ZhKwPESa3ah1r6u1sURytMhU8GyVnc" "content": -{ "algorithm": "m.megolm.v1.aes-sha2" ciphertext": "AwgAErABPeRzzy2zD0X3/XYuP6Z/ GoxYVEFYafFRtrDUalTz9HnOvy+Y7v3Mb/ ucbMiyKTe74h2QdgRaHQk9JaDN5Cwq6hmHQuy5pxxnNki9 YZ4BD5mNbaWc5kL7k2+qftumwHWxdYvUTLBwz3dK6c29ik 69wcX1wyB6NReP90/2xVxHQjHH727yzLyrYuOYapTy9Esdzc HXvoIJ5AIVLSzaAEulY5YcwhHQQQF3LHNrkwZ2W0AYy77Z WzfutYGinFpqXWRTXFM65V9V7nVkmPjjOCNc+Eiz70h0zRu QQC2XXZcWhbt7rwKPeeoffaWHhmNiMOGBioBkpzlljw4" "device_id": "RYIDRJCFLQ" "sender_key": "EhlZmYo85D8ICluhCNUIk+U/ TbTzMG5oB+b7z/+w8Bs" "session_id": "j+fsgZDUu2ocbB8fLWpQlJFBNnNkGLOefZnBceTI4OE" origin_server_ts": 1725666785233 "sender": "@criticalresist8:matrix.org" "room_id": "!RsmVqNrD6NO0EJIN:genzedong.xyz" "unsigned

And after decryption, you get this:

type": "m.room.message" "content": -{ "body": "i love when dogs do that with their head" "m.mentions": - { "msgtype": "m.text
[-] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 6 points 8 months ago

Why would private companies encrypt your chats

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
89 points (95.9% liked)

technology

23758 readers
157 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS