Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54803 readers

1034 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

154

Ditch Telegram for Piracy. (mastodon.social)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ignoring the context.

Don't pirate over Telegram, it's no longer safe in terms of privacy and legal safety.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This kind of confusion illustrated by Telegram users is exactly why it was the right thing to do for privacy when Signal removed support for SMS because it's not encrypted. People still whine endlessly about it, but most users are not very savvy, and they'll assume "this app is secure" and gleefully send compromised SMS to each other. All the warnings and UI indicators that parts of the app were less secure (or not at all in the case of SMS) would be ignored by many users, resulting in an effectively more dangerous app. Signal was smart to remove those insecure features entirely.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Yeah. You can't offer a half-secure and half-private platform and expect your average person to be able to figure out which half is which, which leads to crazy misconceptions, misunderstandings, and ultimately just a bunch of wrong and misleading information being passed around.

I'd argue, though, that Telegram probably did this on purpose, and profited GREATLY from being obtuse and misleading.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I wonder if they'll add RCS

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don't Google hold the keys to the kingdom on that one? I see it as unlikely that Signal adds support.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

At the moment, essentially.

The way Google got carrier buy-in for yet another messaging platform was to basically run it for them at no charge.

The carriers COULD run their own RCS infra, but if you're getting the milk for free, why buy the cow?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure, at least iMessage will add RCS. But this has the benefit to get the correct chat bubble color for Google. I'm not sure if there'll be anything to gain for them to include Signal. Maybe the EU will force them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

RCS isn't E2E, and it doesn't minimize metadata.

Moxie Marlinspike has been strongly against federation in Signal because of how it makes avoiding metadata almost impossible.

I'd say there's basically zero chances Signal will add RCS.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

E2E is not in the standard, but the Google implementation uses it.

Google added end-to-end encryption to their Messages app using the Signal Protocol as the default option for one-on-one RCS conversations starting in June 2021,[88] [89] (83] [90] In December 2022, end-to-end encryption was added to group chats in the Google Messages app for beta users and was made available to all users in August 2023.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

You're right. I've read somewhere that Apple plans to work with GSMA to add encryption to the official RCS standard, so this major issue hopefully gets fixed at some point.