A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
With Signal, the key to encrypt your messages are on your device, and is never sent to the company.
Signal, and anyone who hacks them, or governments that attack them, cannot read your messages. This has been proven in court.
With Telegram, the key to encrypt your messages are on their server.
Telegram, and anyone who hacks them, or governments that attack them, can read all of your messages. This has also been proven in court.
In my view, by far the biggest reason to switch is that Telegram doesn't end-to-end encrypt chats by default.
Yes you can start encrypted chats specifically, but i'll bet 99% of chats on telegram aren't encrypted - meaning whoever has access to the telegram servers can read all the messages.
Signal claims to end-to-end encrypt all chats by default, and if you want to be 100% sure you can in theory read the source code and compile the app yourself. this means signal cannot read any of your messages, even if police asks them to or servers get seized. That's a massive advantage in privacy.
Additionally, E2E chats don't sync between devices (and iirc you can't use them on desktop at all), and group chats can't be encrypted at all.
Signal very recently made syncing between devices possible:
https://signal.org/blog/a-synchronized-start-for-linked-devices/
I was talking about Telegram. Syncing messages between devices has always been possible on Signal, just not the ones from before you connected the extra device.
Telegram doesn't even encrypt group chats. And it doesn't encrypt private convos by default.
While there may be better options out there, from a purely security standpoint.
The real world, with non-tech people needs solutions that are easy, fast and as close to foolproof as possible.
I choose Signal, because my mum, my sisters and brothers (none of which are tech people) can all go to their app stores and install Signal, it works and it is easy. Signal is private BY DEFAULT, I don't have to remind them to turn on security for each chat, there is voice and video chat for individuals and groups, I can use it to send files. It is really good. Secure communication is their primary goal.
I have been using Signal since it was called TextSecure and I only had one contact using it.
Yes it sucked when they dropped SMS support; but these days about 98% of my messaging goes through Signal. Any SMS is usually from my doctor/dentist/bank.
I never really trusted Telegram, too many compromises. Secure communication is not their primary goal.
I can't speak about telegram, but signal is absolutely not secure to use. Its a US-based service (that must adhere to NSLs), and requires phone numbers (meaning your real identity in the US).
Matrix, XMPP, or SimpleX are all decentralized, and don't require US hosting.
This entire article is guessing at hypothetical backdoors. Its like saying that AES is backdoored because the US government chose it as the standard defacto symmetrical encryption.
There is no proof that Signal has done anything nefarious at all.
So if I understand it Signal has your phone number but only logs sign up date and last activity date. So yes they can say this person has Signal and last used it on date X. Other than that no information.
Matrix doesn't require a phone number but has no standard on logging activity so it's up to the server admin what they log, and they could retain ip address, what users are talking in what, rooms, etc. and E2EE is not required.
I think both have different approaches. I'm just trying to understand. On one hand you have centralized system that has a standard to minimize logs or decentralized system that must be configured to use E2EE and to remove logs.
Thank you for your post!
I want you to know your effort and knowledge is appreciated, this will help future readers make better decisions.✨
But the situation stands that my friend and their friends are not as technologically literate as we are, and I would rather have them on something easy and secured than unsecured at all, especially from my experience with getting communities to use such decentralized platforms you mentioned.
SimpleX is taking a lot of venture capital money which makes it just slightly suspect, imho. Those guys usually want a return of some kind on their investment. I simply don't trust the motives of technocrats like Jack Dorsey.
The Matrix Foundation, on the other hand, seems a lot more democratic in governance and stewardship of the protocol.
Good projects require money. And SimpleX is still way better than Signal and Telegram, so imo it's worth supporting and using
As you say yourself (cryptocraphic nerd here):
Signal’s E2EE protocol means that, most likely, message content between persons is secure.
So a shame there are no free servers, are the server soft not open source, only the signal app itself?
and requires phone numbers (meaning your real identity in the US).
This gets shared a lot as a major concern for all services requiring a phone number. It is definitely true that by definition, a phone number is linked to a person's identity, but in the case of signal, no other information can be derived from it. When the US government requests data for that phone number from Signal, like they occasionally do, the only information Signal provides them with is whether they do have a signal account and when they registered it last and when they last signed in. How is that truly problematic? For all other services which require a phone number, you would have much more information which is where it is truly problematic, say social graph, text messages, media, locations, devices etc. But none of that is accessible by Signal. So literally the only thing signal can say is whether the person has an account, that's about it. What's the big deal about it? Clearly the US government already has your phone number because they need it to make the request for Signal, but they gain absolutely no other information.
Telegram rolls their own crypto. That should be the biggest red flag by far. I say this as a telegram user
Telegram for random public chatter/file storage(with password lock), talking to strangers without giving them your number. Signal for personal/private conversations.
Spread your data (encrypted or not) around, so a single entity doesn't own your digital life. Your device can handle 2 apps and don't give them permissions willy nilly. Geez, every one of these posts just wants to start a flame war.
Telegram is not end to end encrypted. Repeating it's not. Only private mode or something like that is.
It really depends on who your friend is, and who they are trying to defenf against.
If the US ( or Russian / Chinese) government really wants to access an internet-connected device, they can do it; what app you are using doesn't even matter. For example, most people use the default Google keyboard, which could be compromised.
If the concern is about local goons / employers / coworkers, then both Telegram and Signal are more than enough to stop them prying.
As for whether to use Signal or Telegram, Signal has end to end encryption enabled by default, while in Telegram you have to switch it on for each chat. On the other hand, Telegram has the best UI among messaging apps hands down.
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’).
The fact that telegram operates in a country that scores 18/100 on global freedom and 30/100 on internet freedom.