If Telegram isn't that secure, then why are extremists like IS using it over Signal or WhatsApp? I know Telegram has better features for big groups and much better multi-platform support, so is that the reason? I'm legitimately asking without any snark.
I am talking about politicians, head of terrorist groups, etc.
While saying that top politicians are complete idiots is probably wrong - then again maybe not, I am not sure anymore - the fact that H. Clinton, run the most expensive campaign in history, with backing from all major tech corps AND her staff didn't bother to use encryption at any scale, let alone running a mail server (God knows what kind of software the server was running if it was OpenBSD or Windows Server 08), to me says a lot about how flawed the understanding of these people and their consultant's is about today's world.
Watching "House of Cards" everybody seems incredibly smart, driven, etc. but the politicians I see in real life on average and on the not-very-smart side and the few I've met in person are clueless beyond salvation.
Ps. Sorry for possible mistakes, I'm reading from mobile.
Sadly, one of the conclusions you can draw from Telegram is that a security business is almost better off with no security.
Pavel Durov says that Telegram is "heavily" encrypted over and over again, journalists who don't know better take that at face value and encode it into every headline ("Telegram, the encrypted messaging app, ..."), and meanwhile since there is no encryption there is no risk of anyone finding or publishing vulnerabilities in it.
Since cryptography already seems unreal to most people (and is always just a matter of getting the smart IT guy to 'crack' it on television), everyone's already predisposed to thinking that security = Switzerland. Unless there's a major change, the charlatans will win every time.
Also, is there evidence that extremists aren't using Signal and WhatsApp?
WhatsApp and Signal offer non-anonymous groups only. They are probably used by people who already know each other.