Meanwhile, Telegram’s owner, Pavel Durov, is trying to reassure his users on Twitter:
Threats to block Telegram unless it gives up private data of its users won’t bear fruit. Telegram will stand for freedom and privacy.
Meanwhile, Telegram’s owner, Pavel Durov, is trying to reassure his users on Twitter:
Threats to block Telegram unless it gives up private data of its users won’t bear fruit. Telegram will stand for freedom and privacy.
I suspect the real question isn’t will Telegram lose this legal battle (I’m assuming they inevitably will because if their argument is upheld as sound under current Russian law, the law will be changed again) but when Telegram inevitably loses this case, will they accept being banned in Russia instead of giving up on user privacy?
I’d hope the answer would be yes, because “messaging that is private from every prying eye except the FSB and anyone they leak to” is not a very good sales pitch and would presumably doom the entire product.
I don’t understand, isn’t Telegram meant to be end to end encrypted? Why would having keys that telegram keeps allow snooping? If Telegram has a way to read user messages then it is NOT secure.
It’s not encrypted except for the optional secret chats. Client-server communication is of course encrypted, and data at rest is encrypted by Telegram’s keys.
I’m not sure why people seem to think that Telegram is secure.
Telegram is completed encrypted, but only secret chats are end-to-end encrypted.
Good snake oil marketing. Do not trust Telegram for anything sensitive.