Many people who focus on information security, including myself, have long considered Telegram suspicious and untrustworthy. Now, based on findings published by the investigative journalism outlet ISt

Investigation by investigative journalism outlet IStories (EN version by OCCRP) shows that Telegram uses a single, FSB-linked company as their infrastructure provider globally.

Telegram’s MTProto protocol also requires a cleartext identifier to be prepended to all client-server messages.

Combined, these two choices by Telegram make it into a surveillance tool.

I am quoted in the IStories story. I also did packet captures, and I dive into the nitty-gritty technical details on my blog.

Packet captures and MTProto deobfuscation library I wrote linked therein so that others can retrace my steps and check my work.

  • arsCynic@beehaw.org
    32·
    3 days ago

    The simplest thing for Soatok to have done would be to ignore the message

    Which also happens to be the simplest thing you could have done, even simpler as none of the toots you quote were addressed to you. Instead, you are dragging this one random exchange into this thread about something else entirely.

    Does it really matter whether or not it is addressed to me? And, the simplest route is not necessarily the most virtuous one. To take an extreme example, if I see someone being bullied I will interfere to stop the bully and console the target. Here, I am simply arguing in favor of less toxicity for it improves credibility.

    • Soatok Dreamseeker@pawb.socialEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      You say you’re arguing in favor of less toxicity, but your example was a screenshot of a comment where I asserted my own healthy boundaries (after being needled by hundreds of demands in the form of “what about <other app>?” from strangers over the course of months).

      Which is more toxic?

      • arsCynic@beehaw.org
        1·
        2 days ago

        You say you’re arguing in favor of less toxicity, but your example was a screenshot of a comment where I asserted my own healthy boundaries (after being needled by hundreds of demands in the form of “what about <other app>?” from strangers over the course of months).

        Which is more toxic?

        The one that contains the most aggression.
        Do most of those strangers know that you are receiving hundreds of requests? They’re strangers, so I’m betting on no. Are they then deserving of any swearing and caps lock yelling? Even if they do know, I can recall few to no instances where unironically doing so packed a punch.

        A more reasonable answer would have been: “Sorry, no idea. For my own healthy boundaries I have to refrain from doing too much of this often-requested but time-consuming research.”
        Not toxic, more effective. And as I mentioned in another reply, with AutoKey you could configure that typing the word “sigh” or phrase ''goddammit not again" automatically expands into the alternative answer suggested above. Being frustrated is fine, and venting is absolutely necessary, but there are ways to do it that are healthy for everyone involved, such as the autoreply and then going for a run. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

        • Soatok Dreamseeker@pawb.socialEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          Which is more toxic?

          The one that contains the most aggression.

          Aggression isn’t toxicity. The logical consequence of your stance is negative peace, and broken stairs.

          Do most of those strangers know that you are receiving hundreds of requests? They’re strangers, so I’m betting on no.

          Sure they do, because I tell them. The screenshot you posted is proof that I inform them.

          The rest of this is needless language policing.

          • arsCynic@beehaw.org
            11·
            1 day ago

            Aggression isn’t toxicity.

            Subjective. “A toxic person is anyone whose behavior upsets you and adds negativity to your life.”
            Asking a simple question and out of the blue getting a response intermixed with full caps and “fucking” would be enough to add negativity to many if not most people’s lives. Also the unyielding need to defend one’s doing so doesn’t help to convey the converse.

            Do most of those strangers know that you are receiving hundreds of requests? They’re strangers, so I’m betting on no.

            Sure they do, because I tell them. The screenshot you posted is proof that I inform them.

            You “inform” them afterwards, therefore they didn’t know.

            The rest of this is needless language policing.

            Not sure what the definition of “language policing” is, but welcome to the Internet. You’re free to be crude or toxic while others are free to point out it out, which is rarely needless.