• ampersandcastles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    22 days ago

    Probably because they can’t? It’s encrypted, yeah?

    Signal posts their subpoenas and responses that are usually like, ‘you fucking dolt, it’s encrypted, we don’t have access’

    • krimson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 days ago

      They probably still have usernames, phone numbers and access logs with IP adresses even though the chats are encrypted.

    • balsoft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      Telegram is categorically less encrypted than Signal for most chats. It’s mostly the same level of security as Facebook Messenger, Instagram DMs, even Email (SMTP/IMAP over TLS) or SMS: it only encrypts communications between the client and the server. Telegram can read everything you send in regular chats. The only way to get end-to-end encryption (such that Telegram technically can’t access your communication) is by starting a fussy and inconvenient “secret chat”. It can only be done between two people (so no E2E group chats at all), only when both are online at the same time, and it only works on the devices on which the secret chat was initiated and accepted; in other words, as a frequent user I’ve only used it once for some really sensitive personal information. Even then Telegram still has access to a lot of metadata about messages: phone numbers of both parties, when the messages are sent, how big they are, etc.

      I’m not saying that cooperating with intelligence/LE agencies is always an ethical, or even a good choice, but Telegram demonstrably had the ability to do so.