Hacker News Reader

Nothing in the comment linked upthread is at all relevant to the analysis of Telegram we are discussing.

You don't get to make a false claim and then handwave it away. You made the claim and you were given evidence otherwise.

This was not a case of a user confusing encryption in transit, as you claim.

No false claim was made, and nothing in that thread was relevant to the analysis of this story or on this thread. I'm very comfortable leaving it there, and that the people who will take my word on none of this mattering are the only ones I need to care about.

Do not use Telegram.

The person you replied to wrote,

> As another HN user pointed out Telegram does not store messages in plaintext: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348228

Telegram does not store messages in plaintext.

Your claim:

> That user seems to be misinformed, and appears to be discussing client-server encryption, not end-to-end encryption

Is categorically false. You do not get to redefine what encryption is. That is not your right.

You've been corrected repeatedly. If you continue to insist you have not made a false claim, you are then lying.

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com