Telegram is not end to end encrypted. Repeating it's not. Only private mode or something like that is.
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
104 points (97.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44763 readers
617 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
There’s a lot of answers itt but heres a simpler one:
If you want to prevent people in power from having access to communications there are two methods employed, broadly speaking:
The first is to make a very secure, zero knowledge, zero trust, zero log system so that when the authorities come calling you can show them your empty hands and smirk.
Signal doesn’t actually do this, but they’re closer to this model than the second one I’m about to describe. Bear in mind they’re a us company so when the us authorities come to their door or authorities from some nation the us has a treaty with come to their door signal is legally required to comply and provide all the information they have.
The second is to simply not talk to the authorities. Telegram was closer to this model than signal, using a bunch of different servers in nations with wildly different extradition and information sharing mechanisms in order to make forcing them to comply with some order Byzantine to the point of not being worth it.
Eventually the powers that be got their shit together and put hands on telegrams owner so now they’re complying with all lawful orders and a comparison of the tech is how you’d pick one.
The technology behind the two doesn’t matter really but default telegram is less “secure” than default imessage (I was talking with someone about it so it’s on the old noggin’).
I really like this explanation. Not many are aware of how telegram was designed to make it as cumbersome for authorities as possible by splitting their data across different nations.
The fact that telegram operates in a country that scores 18/100 on global freedom and 30/100 on internet freedom.
I'm not an expert but I'll use this analogy.
Signal is you meeting a person who gives you secure devices. This person then can only ever provide the following information to someone else. From Signal website. "The phone number. the date and time a user registered with Signal and the last date of a user's connectivity to the Signal service." Only your device and your friends device can read the messages. It goes direct from you to them. The only way to read any message is having the device.
Telegram is like you making an agreement with another person. By default messages are encrypted but go to the other person for decryption before going to your friends device. This other person Telegram has and will give the phone number, messages, serverlogs, dates to legal entities by request. Now there is an option to bypass this person by using "secret chats" . This will make it so the message is directly from your device to their device. Telegram can't read messages but as I understand they can still potentially have metadata, server logs of when messages are sent, how many, what device they are sent from. Bottomline is they have activity logs Signal can only provide the date you signed up and the last time you used the app. Not only that but just being on the Telegram platform which allows bots makes you a target. Bots will contact you like spam. Sending you harmful links, etc.
Almost every security person I've ever read says. "I use Signal". Why wouldn't you go with the service that by default has end to end encryption? Telegram makes it a option you have to select for each person. Both use your phone number.
These are very basic descriptions. I'm Happy to remove or update if I got anything wrong.
I won't be popular in this thread, but I don't fight this battle anymore. Telegram beats Signal in virtually every aspect of user experience. If a person is unlikely to be convinced that e2ee is worth taking all the UX hits, I don't try anymore.
Does it though? I have used both and I vastly prefer my experience on signal. I don't really engage with the like, "communities" aspect of telegram though so perhaps thats what I'm missing?
Nope, see my reply to sibling for a more complete example
I can't see anyone else on this comment thread so I guess I must be defederated with whatever user you replied to
I keep seeing this claim, but I may be too much of a computer nerd to notice when using them both. What does Telegram do better and how?
I may be too much of a computer nerd to notice when using them both
That's probably true of just about everyone on Lemmy.
What does Telegram do better and how?
User experience, like I said. How many less technically inclined people do you know who will understand why they have no message history in Signal after moving devices? Yes, they could have kept it if they'd had backups enabled and moved the archive over and restored from it, but it's too late now, their entire contact list has been notified that their safety number's changed (another aspect we get to attempt to explain). It's a bummer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Signal needs a phone number.
I don't want to give them one. Also I don't have one.
Oh my, that seems to eliminate Signal as an option.
Next?
Apparently Signal still requires it, though you no longer must reveal it to others.
Wired last year: Signal Finally Rolls Out Usernames, So You Can Keep Your Phone Number Private
Those features, which WIRED has tested, are designed to allow users to conceal their phone numbers as they communicate on the app and instead share a username as a less-sensitive method of connecting with one another.
Whittaker says that, for better or worse, a phone number remains a necessary requisite as the identifier Signal privately collects from its users.
Apparently I still don't have one. Haven't had a phone number for about a decade. No SMS spam, no "survey" calls; nothing.
Same with telegram though