- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
I know Lemmy hates telegram but it should be common knowledge that all platforms process requests from authorities.
The repeated posting of this story the last few days seems artificial.
I don’t really have any special hate for Telegram myself, and I never saw it as a secure communication platform. I have more problem with Signal because people treat it like it’s paragon of privacy and security.
I’d be curious to hear your criticisms of Signal! While I haven’t seen anyone describing it as a “paragon of privacy and security” I do think it is a highly accessible SMS replacement that is also open source, end-to-end encrypted, and operated by a nonprofit.
I wrote a longer one here: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html
The short version is, that it’s a centralized, US hosted service. All of those are subject to National Security Letters, and so are inherently compromised. Even if we accept that the message content is secure, then signal’s reliance on phone numbers (and in the US, a phone number is connected to your real identity and even current address), means that the US government has social connection graphs: everyone who uses signal, who they talk to, and when.
You are literally incorrect.
The most obvious one that has been explained to death here is that Signal collects vast amounts of metadata. It’s also a centralized service that’s operated in the US, and it doesn’t even make reproducible builds for the Android client.
Where did you read that they are collecting vast amounts of metadata? Not challenging your claim just that I have been trying to find more info and came up empty. Signal says “we don’t collect analytics or telemetry data” but that’s about it.
You need a phone number to sign up. Phone numbers are metadata that uniquely identifies people, and this data constitutes a network of connections. If this metadata is shared with the government, then it can be trivially correlated with all the other information collected about people.
In my book a phone number is not “vast amounts of metadata” but I see your point. Again, I have never seen someone describing Signal as a “paragon of privacy and security” 9usually it’s presented as an improvement over SMS) but if they do I will put on my Trilby and correct them.
It’s the volumes of phone numbers collected collectively that constitute vast amounts of metadata. Meanwhile, I’ve seen plenty of people advocate using Signal as the best option for privacy. And any time there is a criticism of Signal then then brigades of people inexplicably appear to vigorously defend it.
And now you know why we’ve been telling you not to use Telegram.
I hear signal is not a good alternative. What is a good one, then?
Depends on your threat model. Signal is fine if you just want to communicate with average joe. If you want something more anonymous look into secureX,
Where are you hearing this?
Matrix, simplex, xmpp.
Signal is an excellent alternative if you’re looking for an E2E encrypted SMS replacement your grandmother can use.
What seems crazy to me is how many people they managed to convince that they were private when they most definitely are not.
Any criminal with half a brain knew what’s up
Brain dead normies lapring edge lord on there were just useful idiots for their handlers
Welp then I think we have to sue them to oblivion S/ But really can’t blame most people whose Are Accustomed to using TeleGram And WhatsUp
This is a difficult topic for me. On the one hand, I believe everyone has a right to privacy and we need to fight for that right. On the other hand, I’m enough of an adult to understand that law enforcement needs to be able to effectively investigate criminal activity. There has to be a middle ground there, somewhere. I just don’t know where that is.
giving the pigs and the feds more powers isn’t gonna help anything lol
There’s no middle ground. Either we’ll have privacy or we won’t.
It’s the warrant process and true encryption. If the cops think you’ve done something bad, they go and get a warrant. The provider turns over what they have, which should just be account info and metadata. Then the cops do good old fashioned police work and get a warrant for your personal stuff which they’ll seize and analyze.
If they actually wanted to do something about child abuse they’d go after the conserative scum who have historically supported it and still do. Its the ones that vote for far right parties, are anti higher-ed, pro homeschooling, anti secularism, pro religious indoctrination, anti feminist, anti age of consent laws, anti sex ed, anti criminalisation of marital rape, anti combating domestic violence, pro child marriages etc instead they are constantly trying to attack human’s right to privacy which only exist on paper.
But isn’t advocating for the privacy of criminals the same as advocating for the crime, itself? Sure, let’s go after the politicians…but are you REALLY okay with letting child molesters, etc. hide their activities from law enforcement online? Like I said, there has to be a middle ground. We just need to find it.
“Child molesters etc” have been online since the internet has existed and very little is done about it. They have also been active offline and very little is done about that too. If they wanted to go after them they would. They don’t, because it is not in their interest to. The threats they will go after are people they disagree with and who their higher ups want targeted. You are always in more danger from authorities than “bad guys” are.
The moment you dissolve rights to privacy for X scenario, you open dissolution for Y and Z as well
The moment you protect criminal behavior, you become complicit in their crimes.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
Just look at the Patriot Act. Did it catch a single terrorist?
I think this is the moment you’re overreaching.
Alternatively what you’re saying is that all gun manufacturers should go to jail for multiple counts of homicide.
There exist no middle ground.
If able to invade privacy of child abuser, able to invade privacy of any person. Then your “privacy” only is trust in authority to not abuse that not actually have privacy.
How that end you can see in china.
