• 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.