By making a minor concession EU governments hope to find a majority next week to approve the controversial „chat control“ bill. According to the proposed child sexual abuse regulation (CSAR), providers of messengers, e-mail and chat services would be forced to automatically search all private messag
Great. That would probably mean a ban for Telegram would also be needed, as they’re known to not bow to local surveillance-laws.
I’m all for doing everything to find effing pedos, but I’ll doubt it will help catch one. Who would be so dumb to do illegal things on the surface-web?
Telegram is already not encrypted by default. Signal is the interesting app - they don’t even have the data to bow to data requests.
deleted by creator
You want Matrix protocol then and apps like Element.
I use Element right now, will they be affected by this new law?
In theory possibly but it’s not like EU can block it
deleted by creator
That would be nice, but most likely that would also mean that getting every service to make changes at around the same time pretty much impossible - which would be essential when e.g. the protocol needs to be updated to deal with new threats.
But who knows; I believe the Digital Markets Act intended to achieve something like this?
deleted by creator
Emails have had major problems with federation too, despite the fact that most email standards have been unchanged or only had minor changes since the early 1980s. You just usually don’t notice so much since most of those are only a headache for mail server administrators, not so much for end users.
The vast majority of emails still aren’t end-to-end encrypted.
Of course it is encrypted by default, just not on device, but in the server side. Just like Gmail, office 365, and so many online services that are perfectly secure and that no one mentions as being a problem.
If you need End to End encryption, you have the option to use it, but being server encrypted it’s more convenient for syncing on devices and for uploading files, which I use a lot.
Sorry you’re right, I meant end-to-end encryption of course. (Gmail, Office 365, and most HTTPS websites are only encrypted in-transit though, not on the server side.)
Which is, of course, the kind of encryption that matters for this proposal. (And which I believe you don’t have the option of using in group chats on Telegram, but don’t quote me on that.) Non-end-to-end encrypted messages can already be obtained by law enforcement by coercing the service provider.
Doesn’t Signal have backdoors for government agencies or am I mistaken? (Has been a while since I read something like that.)
No
Every time somebody comes to them with warrants they got nothing but timestamps for account creation and last login
Closest thing you might be thinking of is when Signal added a warning third party keyboards might spy on you, which was promptly followed by China banning Signal (the most popular Chinese keyboard app is developed within China).
Alright, thanks for the info! Fun fact about the chinese keyboard app.
Nope
Signal or tgram. Whatever floats your boat and isn’t whatapp and co. It’s not always about encryption alone. It’s also about trust. I trust tgram and Pavel Durov. If one doesn’t, go signal & co. Perfectly valid alternative.
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”.
you have to open chat, click profile picture of contact, and then click the three dot menu from there, where you will find the option. It is buried deep down.
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.
the title of the post has secure encryption and chat in the title. but irrelevant, yeah.
Also it’s at least 4 taps (and you get reduced functionality too) than most other apps, which require 0
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.