zlacker

I don't think that's a great idea until Signal stops exposing the phone number of the user to everyone else (for all the bashing that Telegram gets on cryptography, it has mechanisms to hide one's phone number and even the fact that one has a Telegram account from others).

>>AnonC+(OP)
Absolutely agree. I really wish Telegram would get off the phone number system, especially after the embarrassing hack in Brazil. It's not explicitly Telegram's fault, but if your primary authentication method is insecure it's at least a little bit your fault.

Phone numbers are NOT safe. I don't know why SMS MFA is even a thing, they're worse than passwords.

When you use phone numbers or SMS for security, you are putting the fate of your entire company's security on an underpaid customer service rep at Verizon.

>>AnonC+(OP)
Given that they're working on that, that's very likely going to be the case before we've managed to get everyone to use it

>>AnonC+(OP)
How is that different from WhatsApp, which is the default for everyone in a lot of places?

>>0xy+01
Telegram should maybe just use proper encryption first.

>>AnonC+(OP)
And don't forget centralization.

>>nickik+i5
And by default.

>>nickik+i5
Can someone explain to me why MtProto is not considered proper encryption? Genuinely asking, not challenging.

At least since version 2.0 it seems it's using AES encryption: https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/description

>>Hamuko+h5
GP here. It’s no different from WhatsApp in this sense. But WhatsApp is even worse because it shares communication metadata with Facebook (though message content is end to end encrypted).

>>AnonC+(OP)
I disagree. Telegram addresses a different issue from Signal. I see signal as a tool to message people you already know and/or trust, but you do not want a third party to be able to listen in. At the point, it doesn't matter if the other party knows my number or not.

Telegram on the other hand is better for issues like this, where large numbers of people need to communicate anonymously without prying eyes.

They're addressing the same issue for different markets. That's all it is.

>>0xy+01
> especially after the embarrassing hack in Brazil

What happened?

>>AnonC+(OP)
The hardcore anarchists have been using cash burners from day 1. But I'm seeing more people in the "concerned citizen" category taking this route too.

>>xerxes+hh
By default its not e2e encrypted and if you want to use e2e you lose lots of capability. That is simply not acceptable in a modern messenger.

>>nickik+8p2
Speaking as someone who regularly uses private chats, what capability?

>>matheu+zV
Numerous Brazilian judges and politicians had their Telegrams hacked via SIM hijacking.

>>0xy+bY2
Secret chats are tied to one single device, which may be ok for some people. The bigger disadvantage is that you cannot have group chats that are end to end encrypted. Only person to person chats are allowed as secret chats.

>>0xy+bY2
- Group Chat

- Multi Device

Seems to me that are some of the most useful things about modern chat.

Also, why not just use a chat app that is save by default. The whole concept of private chat is insane to me.