What are the reasons to use Signal over Telegram

[dessalines@lemmy.ml]

Behind those usernames, are phone numbers (meaning real identities) stored in signal's database.

[tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de]

As far as I know telegram requires a phone number too.

And the conversation was about "talking to strangers without giving them your number", not without giving signal nor telegram your number.

[9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world]

Right but Signal has been audited by various security firms throughout its lifetime, and each time they generally report back that this messenger has encryption locked down properly.

[dessalines@lemmy.ml]

There are far better privacy alternatives to both: matrix, xmpp, simplex all work well and don't require phone numbers or US-based hosting.

[grumpyduckling@sh.itjust.works]

Even if you switch to an offline keyboard, the new "ai" assistants in Windows, iOS, and maybe Android? Can read your screen, microphone, and etc. I'm not really sure what you should use unless you use coded language. Even then, there's just too much information about you out there anyway.

[thehobbyist@lemmy.zip]

It's unfortunate that you react like this. I don't claim to be an expert, never have. I've only been asking for evidence, but all we get to are assumptions and they all seem to stem from the fact that allegedly the CIA has indirectly funded Signal (I'm not disputing nor validating it).

The concern is valid, and it has caused a lot of distrust in many companies due to the Snowden leaks, but that distrust is founded in the leaks. But so far there is no evidence that Signal is part of any of it. And given the continued endorsement by security experts, I'm inclined in trusting them.

[hotcoffee@lemm.ee]

Hmmm the Signal users sure like it, will have to take off my tinfoil data hat and give it a try

[thehobbyist@lemmy.zip]

From what I understand, sealed sender is implemented on the client side. And that's what's in the github repo.

[krash@lemmy.ml]

I really like this explanation. Not many are aware of how telegram was designed to make it as cumbersome for authorities as possible by splitting their data across different nations.

[noxypaws@pawb.social]

Same with telegram though

[tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de]

Where do you want to place the goal post?

We talked about comparing 2 applications. Commenter wasn't up-to-date and implied a falsehood, I corrected it as it is important for the discussion. Then you talk about something completely else and in context, implied a falsehood, I corrected that as it is important for the discussion. And now you are talking about something completely else again.

Please express your opinion. You can do it in this thread, even if it is off-topic, I don't care, but please stop acting like you are responding to me.

[hadriscus@lemm.ee]

Do you mean the builds published aren't guaranteed to be built from the source that's on github ? isn't there a cryptographic way to ensure that ?

[nexy@lemmy.sdf.org]

Telegrsm is not secure anymore. USA have all the keys of the encriptions of telegrsm.

[doomsdayrs@lemmy.ml]

citation?

[dyskolos@lemmy.zip]

That too. Sadly the restrictiveness was badly abused. Noone really wonders but...that's why we can't have nice things.

[boomkop3@reddthat.com]

Well then use the secret chat if you want your chat to be secret from any prying eyes

[dyskolos@lemmy.zip]

I meant the restrictiveness towards governments. The pesos and Nazis fucked that up, tgram had to do something or have their ill repute grow even more.

[bazoogle@lemmy.world]

If you have a safe, but cannot open it, do you own the contents inside? Signal has no way of accessing your data, I would argue they don't own it.

[bazoogle@lemmy.world]

I wouldn't say USA has all the encryption keys, but the fact that it is actually possible to have a backdoor is reason enough for me to not use it. Signal complies with all search warrants, giving all the data they have to law enforcement. They have never given any data to law enforcement, because they do not have access to it. Telegrams approach is to simply to spread the data to several servers in different countries, so if law enforcement wanted access they'd have to submit requests to each country (some of which wouldn't comply).

[bazoogle@lemmy.world]

The encryption method they use was made up by them, and the chats aren't even end to end encrypted by default. Which I would argue is a larger red flag.