• Great. That would probably mean a ban for Telegram would also be needed, as they’re known to not bow to local surveillance-laws.

    I’m all for doing everything to find effing pedos, but I’ll doubt it will help catch one. Who would be so dumb to do illegal things on the surface-web?

      •  Yamayo   ( @Yamayo@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Of course it is encrypted by default, just not on device, but in the server side. Just like Gmail, office 365, and so many online services that are perfectly secure and that no one mentions as being a problem.

        If you need End to End encryption, you have the option to use it, but being server encrypted it’s more convenient for syncing on devices and for uploading files, which I use a lot.

        • Sorry you’re right, I meant end-to-end encryption of course. (Gmail, Office 365, and most HTTPS websites are only encrypted in-transit though, not on the server side.)

          Which is, of course, the kind of encryption that matters for this proposal. (And which I believe you don’t have the option of using in group chats on Telegram, but don’t quote me on that.) Non-end-to-end encrypted messages can already be obtained by law enforcement by coercing the service provider.

      • Signal or tgram. Whatever floats your boat and isn’t whatapp and co. It’s not always about encryption alone. It’s also about trust. I trust tgram and Pavel Durov. If one doesn’t, go signal & co. Perfectly valid alternative.

    • not really, cos telegram is not end to end encrypted unless you do not use group chats, and deep dive into the menu to enable secret chat for every individual contact.

      I have no idea why telegram got this secure reputation. it is literally the absolute worst of the bunch, security wise

      • Encryption wasn’t relevant in the context of the surveillance-law, as having ways to decrypt it will be required then and hence make it useless.

        Telegram does not bow. They won’t bend their knee to a government wanting them to plant a bot. They then will just be banned.

        Besides, there is end2end-encryption if you want, where is the problen? Noone forces you to use the cloud. And it’s also not “hidden deep”.

          • If that’s “buried deep” to you, then maybe that technology isn’t your thing. Beside that was totally irrelevant to the topic at all. If you don’t like tgram, use something else. It’s not a pro/contra encryption discussion, it’s anti-observation.

            If a messenger is still alive after this law gets real, then you have your answer regarding security and privacy.

              • I think, you didn’t get the real impact of the meaning of this post if you fight about encryption-capabilities of some clients.

                Wow. 4 taps. This is really above the horizon of most boomers 😁 (of which you surely aren’t of)

                Seriously, who cares. If you don’t like it, use another client. Telegram rocks and has a lot of features i would never want to miss. It’s not all about privacy and privacy. Smart people know when to use which tool at what occasion at their disposal. It’s about having even the option to do so at all, which the law mentioned in the OP is going to fuck away from us. But sure, go ahead and fight your peasant client-wars. Omg tgram is not the most secure client, i gotta fight it until the last secure messengers are gone at all. Happy whatsapping then.