this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024

171 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59674 readers

4636 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

171

Telegram is exposing their users privacy. (lemmynsfw.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/technology

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 97 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Telegram was built to protect activists and ordinary people from corrupt governments and corporations – we do not allow criminals to abuse our platform to evade justice.

So who gets to pick what's a lawful request and criminal activity? It's criminal in some states to seek an abortion or help with an abortion, so would they hand out the IPs of those "criminals"? Because depending on who you ask some will tell you they're basically murderers. And that's just one example.

Good privacy apps have nothing to hand out to any government, like Signal.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Exactly. The strive for zero knowledge is the proper way to be going.

[–] halcyoncmdr 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But then you can't sell your customer's data for profit. Even if you don't now, you still have that option in the future.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Exactly. Which is the entire reason you should do it. Since you can't sell your customers for profit, that means you have to profit off of your customers. And another business could start up and compete with you. Also, your customers will trust you more.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The second I went to sign up and learned a phone number was absolutely required, I knew that their privacy was pure bullshit. That little declaration at the end here is an absolute slap to the face.

[+] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's bad for privacy no matter how you sell it. Unless you have a good amount of disposable income to buy up burner numbers all the time, a phone number tends to be incredibly identifying. So if a government agency comes along saying "Hey, we know this account sent this message and you have to give us everything you have about this account," for the average person, it doesn't end up being that different than having given them your full id.

[–] calamityjanitor 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Another aspect is the social graph. It's targeted for normies to easily switch to.

Very few people want to install a communication app, open the compose screen for the first time, and be met by an empty list of who they can communicate with.

https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

By using phone numbers, you can message your friends without needing to have them all register usernames and tell them to you. It also means Signal doesn't need to keep a copy of your contact list on their servers, everyone has their local contact list.

This means private messages for loads of people, their goal.

Hey, we know this account sent this message and you have to give us everything you have about this account

It's a bit backwards, since your account is your phone number, the agency would be asking "give us everything you have from this number". They've already IDed you at that point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Yep, at that point they're just fishing for more which, hey, why wouldn't they.

It's a give and take for sure, requiring a real phone number makes it harder for automated spam bots to use the service, but at the same time, it puts the weight of true privacy on the shoulders and wallets of the users, and in a lesser way, incentives the use of less than reputable services, should a user want to truly keep their activities private.

And yeah, there's an argument to be made for keeping crime at bay, but that also comes with risks itself. If there was some way to keep truly egregious use at bay while not risking a $10,000 fine on someone for downloading an episode of Ms. Marvel, I think that would be great.

[+] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Says right there in the subpoena "You are required to provide all information tied to the following phone numbers." This means that the phone number requirement has already created a leak of private information in this instance, Signal simply couldn't add more to it.

Additionally, that was posted in 2021. Since then, Signal has introduced usernames to "keep your phone number private." Good for your average Joe Blow, but should another subpoena be submitted, now stating "You are required to provide all information tied to the following usernames," this time they will have something to give, being the user's phone number, which can then be used to tie any use of Signal they already have proof of back to the individual.

Yeah, it's great that they don't log what you send, but that doesn't help if they get proof in any other way. The fact is, because of the phone number requirement, anything you ever send on Signal can easily be tied back to you should it get out, and that subpoena alone is proof that it does.

[–] PapstJL4U 5 points 1 month ago

Guys like you see privacy as a monolith, that it never is. Unusable privacy is meanigless as email had shown. Privacy of communications does not mean privacy of communicators and usable authentication can be more important then anonymity.

And all this has to be realised on real-world servers, that are always in reach of real world goverment.

[–] TotalFat 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In the US, agents must petition a judge for a search warrant. If granted, the agent may then compel an IT company to produce. If they are able, they must comply. It isn't up to the CEO to decide what he feels is right.

Look for services that allow your data to be encrypted, but it must also clearly state the service provider does not have the encryption keys -- you do. Apple does this, I believe.

[–] woelkchen 0 points 1 month ago

So who gets to pick what’s a lawful request and criminal activity?

Probably Telegram themselves. Durov was forced into exile by Putin.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The…law?

In which country?

[+] [email protected] -11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The country in which the perpetrator lives or the crime was committed. First time using the internet?

In your opinion, all companies must disclose the personal information of customers whenever a Government says "This person broke the law"?

[+] [email protected] -9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

None of this is my opinion, it’s just how the world works LOL

Can you elaborate?

Not necessarily, but kinda. The gov typically need some sort of warrant and they need approval from the country they’re requesting it from.

Which Government?

Pardon my ignorance as this is my first time using the internet, but I am pretty sure that every Government on the planet does not use a universal set of laws or procedures for enforcement.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] cm0002 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So in your world, journalists and activists trying to bring attention to human rights violations their country's fascist government is committing in an attempt to bring in good change should be just fucked over right?

Because those governments label those people as "criminals" when they're objectively not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can you elaborate?

I just did.

None of this is my opinion, it’s just how the world works LOL

This may be of some use to you.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elaborate

Which Government?

I already answered this one as well.

The gov typically need some sort of warrant, and they need approval from the country they’re requesting it from.

United States of America? Canada? North Korea? China? Australia? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Brazil?

The point is the app was designed for secure communication, specifically from corrupt governments, which is why it is problematic to allow access to user data as long as the individual is breaking a law in that country.

Or to use the example from the top:

So who gets to pick what’s a lawful request and criminal activity? It’s criminal in some states to seek an abortion or help with an abortion, so would they hand out the IPs of those “criminals”? Because depending on who you ask some will tell you they’re basically murderers. And that’s just one example.

[–] mashbooq 33 points 1 month ago

Telegram users have never had privacy. Group chats are completely in the open and private messages are only encrypted if both users turn it on for each conversation—and it's off by default. I've never understood why anyone thinks Telegram is any better than posting anywhere else on the internet.

[–] lefixxx 10 points 1 month ago

All.non E2EE chat apps do this. Also Apple, Facebook, google etc. And don't forget the us gov has no problem giving a gag order and demand backdoors and encryption keys (lavamail).

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All this talk of encryption and sopenas is mostly pointless - all the police need to do is join any of the Telegram channels and see the evidence for themselves, like in this case - https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350438242/man-who-wanted-build-gallows-hear-jacinda-arderns-neck-snap-guilty-threats-kill

No doubt there are private channels but there's absolutely no shortage of criminal stuff happening out in the open.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

My younger sister (Gen Z) talks smack about my generation (millennial) overuse of emojis and this Telegram post is making me agree with her. The attempt at cutesie emojis is jarring.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

On a privacy note in general, I got an email from Proton today saying that they were changing their terms of service and I actually care enough about the service that I went and read the new terms and privacy policies for the products that I use. I will admit to not understanding a lot of the legal ease, but the part I was most interested in was the data retention policies and data encryption. And that all seems to be pretty bulletproof from a tech angle.