I didn't know that. If accurate, this puts Telegram more in the category of something like Signal on the desktop than WhatsApp or this Google thing.
(But unlike Signal Telegram also haven't been caught with glaring zero days or caught sending images to anyone except the intented recipient the last fee years.)
Source on this? Signal can't even send messages to users with their phones off. Telegram (like WhatsApp) will buffer the message on the server (to the best of my knowledge) and can relay that message quite some time after. Signal clearly provides E2EE chats and group chats, so I'm not sure why that's stated here. For point-to-point, my understanding is that the functionality is extremely limited here and that you can't actually chat. That's what I found googling anyways. While Signal doesn't have this, there is an open feature request for something like this[0], but traction is often low on topics like these. Maybe if HN users were as passionate on Signal forums as they were here we'd get more of these features? Who knows. Devs may just ignore those too.
> But unlike Signal Telegram also haven't been caught with glaring zero days or caught sending images to anyone except the intented recipient the last fee years.
I'd actually like a source on this. I'm not aware of any Signal zero days... ever. Or hearing about Signal users receiving wrong messages. I have heard about several zero days with Telegram though.
That is exactly what Signal has done for years (if not from the beginning?). It's why there's a distinction between one vs. two checkmarks on a sent message:
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320751-Ho...
Even if you trust Telegram's e2e it's not on by default. Secure chats are second class and missing lots of features (plus glitchy, I lost multiple entire chat histories), so almost no one uses them.
I have not seen anyone postin any reason to not trust their end-to-end-encryption, so this shortens to a criticisms of point-to-point-encryption, which is (abd I'm feeling generous here) as about as useful as criticism of postcards.
Note, I'm not going after you but after the HN tradition of trashing Telegram.
It doesn't require breaking e2e either to make an impact, since no one I know uses secret chats on the regular anyway
Durov claiming in 2014 to assist Russian government in fighting 'extremism' (we all know what it means) is enough for me. I couldn't find any debunking, clarification or walking back those words.
As for closed groups I think they claim they don't have access and police have to get someone on the inside.
As for cooperating with Russian authorities in particular, Telegram has a history of open confrontation with Russian authorities, and for a long time had to maintain a proxy network for Russian residents.
Today we also see that both Russians and Ukrainians use Telegram to reach out, but I suspect at least Ukrainians use something else between themselves.
That Russians and Ukrainians use Telegram is the exact issue here! Tons of my fellow Russians and I imagine most Ukrainians use Telegram to exchange statements that literally make them extremists or just criminals in the eyes of Russian gov, the very gov Durov declared collaboration with to get unblocked in the country where TG has the most users, they do it every day and without the impaired secret chats feature.
How do you think the secret chat is impaired?
Point-to-point-encrypted means it can theoretically[1] be read by the vendor (Telegram in this case) or anyone who can coerce the vendor. This is the standard for mail, online banking etc.
The reason for providing both end-to-end-encrypted and point-to-point-encrypted is that point-to-point-encryption is significantly simpler, which makes it easiee to create useful and or cool features.
[1]: vendors can do a nunber of things to make it hard/next to impossible for employees and others to access data, like for example restricting access to user data to service accounts, only allow debugging access in special circumstances and auditing such debugging access.
Telegram used to claim they solve it by sending/storing encrypted data through/in different data centers from the keys, and keeping these days centers in different jurisdictions. Done properly should mean that two or more employees across the company would have to conspire to get access to customer data, or two or more judges in different countries would have to demand data.
But unlike with end-to-end-encryption we have to take their word for it.
My most understanding reading is that you mean Telegram receives the data in plain text at their servers.
That reading implies that they don't do this whole "encrypted data one way, keys another way" thing. (If we know they don't do that I am interested in knowing.)
But a number of people here on HN will read it as "Telegram sends data unencrypted", which is definitely incorrect.