Well, to me xmpp is the way to go, but I guess it’s not a matter of opinion, but rather understanding the motivation.
Why is your dad looking for telegram? What caused your dad to look into it? Perhaps digging into those, one can make a case with alternative more private options. For sure one can always argue in general the already mentioned alternatives, and the ones to come are better privacy wide, but it boils down to why is him looking to use telegram. If it’s about having friends or co-workers, or a high school set of friends there, I would think there’s no way to change his mind, :( But more technology arguments like stickers, better voice/video conferences, whatever, then that’s more something that can be argued I would think, the same way if he’s just looking for something more private of course.
But it’s Telegram. Avoiding laws, their registered office tells us enough. No encryption (only in a few cases after one’s own initiative). I don’t see a better option.
Yeah, IMHO Signal is the right balance of usability and privacy. Problem with not having a user ID is that you can’t easily use the application on multiple devices at the same time and if you lose the device, or don’t properly migrate to a new device, you will have to start over building your connections to others.
But the real issue with no user ID or centralized platform is discoverability. Same reason things like gpg for email never caught on. You can’t just type in a person’s phone number, username, or whatever and start talking to them. It only works if you have another line of communication with each person to set up the connection. This is usually the deal-beaker.
But the problem with user IDs is that anyone can create as many as they want and use them to avoid spam and abuse filtering. So that’s why phone number is used by Signal as a unique identifier. It’s not 100% unique, but it’s good enough to deal with all but the most determined abusers.
They both are bad in privacy in one way or the other. WhatsApp is collecting vast trove of data about you, though it can’t read the chat itself. Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption enabled by default, means anyone have access to the server can read your chat history, though you’re last subject to data collection.
If you’re doing illicit activity though, WhatsApp is better than Telegram because the chat contents are the evidence those law enforcements are going after, not the connection. They can’t arrest you because you make friends with a criminal, but they absolutely can because you have a criminal action recorded in chat history.
it can. I’m not saying it does, but it absolutely can
WhatsApp? It can by piggybacking the content on the client itself. It can’t read on the server if it’s as advertised as following the Signal Protocol.
But that kind of functionality either need targeted deployment, or have that built-in to the client in public channel. It doesn’t matter if they does it or if they can do it, the logic of that functionality still have to exist somewhere. I would believe some nerds would pickup some indicators and had that reversed engineered long ago.
Without a solid proof, I would on the err side and refrain from claiming such.
It’s better than whatsapp, imo.
Yes, signal and matrix are better but at least it’s not facebook.
Well, to me xmpp is the way to go, but I guess it’s not a matter of opinion, but rather understanding the motivation.
Why is your dad looking for telegram? What caused your dad to look into it? Perhaps digging into those, one can make a case with alternative more private options. For sure one can always argue in general the already mentioned alternatives, and the ones to come are better privacy wide, but it boils down to why is him looking to use telegram. If it’s about having friends or co-workers, or a high school set of friends there, I would think there’s no way to change his mind, :( But more technology arguments like stickers, better voice/video conferences, whatever, then that’s more something that can be argued I would think, the same way if he’s just looking for something more private of course.
But it’s Telegram. Avoiding laws, their registered office tells us enough. No encryption (only in a few cases after one’s own initiative). I don’t see a better option.
And SinpleX is better than Signal because it uses the same engine but does not require your phone number.
Downside is that some of the signup options glitch and will put off non tech people.
Yeah, IMHO Signal is the right balance of usability and privacy. Problem with not having a user ID is that you can’t easily use the application on multiple devices at the same time and if you lose the device, or don’t properly migrate to a new device, you will have to start over building your connections to others.
But the real issue with no user ID or centralized platform is discoverability. Same reason things like gpg for email never caught on. You can’t just type in a person’s phone number, username, or whatever and start talking to them. It only works if you have another line of communication with each person to set up the connection. This is usually the deal-beaker.
But the problem with user IDs is that anyone can create as many as they want and use them to avoid spam and abuse filtering. So that’s why phone number is used by Signal as a unique identifier. It’s not 100% unique, but it’s good enough to deal with all but the most determined abusers.
They both are bad in privacy in one way or the other. WhatsApp is collecting vast trove of data about you, though it can’t read the chat itself. Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption enabled by default, means anyone have access to the server can read your chat history, though you’re last subject to data collection.
If you’re doing illicit activity though, WhatsApp is better than Telegram because the chat contents are the evidence those law enforcements are going after, not the connection. They can’t arrest you because you make friends with a criminal, but they absolutely can because you have a criminal action recorded in chat history.
it can. I’m not saying it does, but it absolutely can
WhatsApp? It can by piggybacking the content on the client itself. It can’t read on the server if it’s as advertised as following the Signal Protocol.
But that kind of functionality either need targeted deployment, or have that built-in to the client in public channel. It doesn’t matter if they does it or if they can do it, the logic of that functionality still have to exist somewhere. I would believe some nerds would pickup some indicators and had that reversed engineered long ago.
Without a solid proof, I would on the err side and refrain from claiming such.