For E2EE, you need to open seperate 1 on 1 chat, which is optional, not default.
And what it comes to group chats or channels, none supports E2EE.
It's like going outside in the rain, getting wet and saying "Well, it's not actually raining, I didn't get a pint of water in my boots."
We have clearly talked about E2EE (end-to-end encryption) and server side encryption is not that. E2EE means that it is encrypted between you and the message target. Server is the middle man, which should not have the access.
Almost everything is already encrypted with TLS on the current world during transmissions and regulations require server side encryption. It is not even our main interest to talk about that anymore, we are past that.
The main issue on the original post is the lack of E2EE.
If you put the key next to a locked door it doesn't matter if you lock the door.
Real encryption means that even Telegram couldn't decrypt it.
If you want to discuss E2EE, do so but it does not make it more "real" than other encryption.
Unencrypted is false. Not E2EE is true. Most use the former to wage war against an app they don't like because they prefer an app like Signal that satisfies their desirable qualities. Moxie actually started this trend and it is despicable. I'd say the exact same thing if Durov started referring to E2EE as "pedo-encryption" or anything else that distorts meaning.
Don't distort meaning. Use precise language.
It's an abuse of language to call that encryption because if you say encryption you imply security. But this is not secure and if it's not secure encryption is useless because security is the reason for encryption. Encryption is not used for the sake of encryption but to protect the content of a message from unwanted access.
Yes, that is what Telegram is doing. It may not be protecting the contents from who you want it protected from (everyone but you and the message recipient) but it does protect the contents from other (notice I did not say all) adversaries Telegram and its users don't want accessing.
It is still encrypted so use correct language, please and do not weaponize words to your own designs.
It is more likely that you are trying to weaponize the words for your own designs.
> It is more likely that you are trying to weaponize the words for your own designs.
Please point to where I have weaponized a word because on its face that accusation doesn't make any sense. I have not decided encryption means unencrypted. I have doggedly insisted words be used appropriately and even went so far as to give an example of mischaracterization of E2EE where I would call someone out.
During the transportation of the information for the target recipient, the data in this case is on plaintext at some point on Telegram's server, and therefore it is not encrypted for the whole duration, going against the idea of transferring or holding information only for authorized parties in ciphertext format.
If we think that Telegram is the targeted party, then it would be encrypted as data is transferred or hold in ciphertext format for the whole process. However the Telegram is no the target, and the encryption is removed in the middle of process.
> Please point to where I have weaponized a word because on its face that accusation doesn't make any sense. I have not decided encryption means unencrypted. I have doggedly insisted words be used appropriately and even went so far as to give an example of mischaracterization of E2EE where I would call someone out.
You brought it up in the first place with a twisted definition.
> You brought it up in the first place with a twisted definition.
I did no such thing. You appear to be confusing idealism with the definition of encryption.
In any case we already have words for transport encryption, encryption at rest, and end to end encryption when referring to modes of encrypted data. Those are sufficient to cover the spectrum of encryption which exists. Calling encryption of one mode "unencrypted" which is not your ideal mode of encryption is disingenuous at best.
A better rain analogy would be someone saying 'I'd like to go for a smoke, is it raining', and you reply 'yes' because there is somewhere in the world where it is raining (just not there). You would be technically correct, but in the context of the question, the person was clearly interested in whether it was raining _there_.