Encryption is self-made and they won’t let anyone audit it. Messages are stored on servers along with all the meta data (your phone number, location data, etc). There is no clear funding model to keep it up and running.
Doesn’t mean it has been hacked or their own employees able to unencrypted data. On the contrary, governments like Iran or Russia tried to ban telegram, since they wouldn’t unencrypt their data. You never hear any complaints from governments about WhatsApp for example, what has a much larger user base and is allegedly end to end encrypted. Yes, sending sensitive information should only be done via private chat, their end to end encrypted message tech.
Storing the data in the server has its advantages like accessing all the data from multiple devices.
Up until some time ago, telegram has been funded by Pavel Durov, nowadays it’s funded by a premium tier that unlocks extra features.
It is the messenger with the most features that I know of, blowing everything else out of the water if you don’t care about end to end stuff. And I trust it more that’s WhatsApp or anything from Meta
All of your assertions would be easily provable if Telegram allowed audits and provided public financials. They do neither. In fact, they just try to talk in loops when it is brought up.
The whole operation is sketchy as hell. Anyone who provides their data to such an org is foolish. At least the Meta’s of the world have to declare their use and it is known and audited.
Telegram wouldn’t even provide a CUSIP or names of the firms that supposedly bought their corporate paper bond.
I’ll stick with Signal. An org whose funding is clear and who has their encryption and security audited by third parties.
Doesn’t mean it has been hacked or their own employees able to unencrypted data. On the contrary, governments like Iran or Russia tried to ban telegram, since they wouldn’t unencrypt their data. You never hear any complaints from governments about WhatsApp for example, what has a much larger user base and is allegedly end to end encrypted. Yes, sending sensitive information should only be done via private chat, their end to end encrypted message tech.
Storing the data in the server has its advantages like accessing all the data from multiple devices.
Up until some time ago, telegram has been funded by Pavel Durov, nowadays it’s funded by a premium tier that unlocks extra features.
It is the messenger with the most features that I know of
How is it sketchy?
Encryption is self-made and they won’t let anyone audit it. Messages are stored on servers along with all the meta data (your phone number, location data, etc). There is no clear funding model to keep it up and running.
The whole org is murky/sketchy.
Doesn’t mean it has been hacked or their own employees able to unencrypted data. On the contrary, governments like Iran or Russia tried to ban telegram, since they wouldn’t unencrypt their data. You never hear any complaints from governments about WhatsApp for example, what has a much larger user base and is allegedly end to end encrypted. Yes, sending sensitive information should only be done via private chat, their end to end encrypted message tech. Storing the data in the server has its advantages like accessing all the data from multiple devices.
Up until some time ago, telegram has been funded by Pavel Durov, nowadays it’s funded by a premium tier that unlocks extra features.
It is the messenger with the most features that I know of, blowing everything else out of the water if you don’t care about end to end stuff. And I trust it more that’s WhatsApp or anything from Meta
All of your assertions would be easily provable if Telegram allowed audits and provided public financials. They do neither. In fact, they just try to talk in loops when it is brought up.
The whole operation is sketchy as hell. Anyone who provides their data to such an org is foolish. At least the Meta’s of the world have to declare their use and it is known and audited.
Telegram wouldn’t even provide a CUSIP or names of the firms that supposedly bought their corporate paper bond.
I’ll stick with Signal. An org whose funding is clear and who has their encryption and security audited by third parties.
What could be other reasons not to do an audit other than it being shady? Maybe they just don’t want to disclose their algorithm?
So far, I trust it more than WhatsApp.
But Signal is definitely the better choice. It’s just sad the people didn’t go with Signal instead of WhatsApp.
What could be other reasons not to do an audit other than it being shady? Maybe they just don’t want to disclose their algorithm?
So far, I trust it more than WhatsApp.
But Signal is definitely the better choice. It’s just sad the people didn’t go with Signal instead of WhatsApp.
What could be other reasons not to do an audit other than it being shady? Maybe they just don’t want to disclose their algorithm?
So far, I trust it more than WhatsApp.
But Signal is definitely the better choice. It’s just sad the people didn’t go with Signal instead of WhatsApp.
Doesn’t mean it has been hacked or their own employees able to unencrypted data. On the contrary, governments like Iran or Russia tried to ban telegram, since they wouldn’t unencrypt their data. You never hear any complaints from governments about WhatsApp for example, what has a much larger user base and is allegedly end to end encrypted. Yes, sending sensitive information should only be done via private chat, their end to end encrypted message tech. Storing the data in the server has its advantages like accessing all the data from multiple devices.
Up until some time ago, telegram has been funded by Pavel Durov, nowadays it’s funded by a premium tier that unlocks extra features.
It is the messenger with the most features that I know of