[sagher]

I haven't checked if it's true or not. Someone stated that Telegram doesn't apply end-to-end encryption (E2EE) automatically, while Whatsapp does. This should be manually enabled by users in the settings, but I cannot find one in my app. Either E2EE is really automatically turned on or it just doesn't allow me to turn it on.

Telegram caught ISIS members that was using their services. They say all the communication was through Telegram. This shouldn't be possible if Telegram have E2EE (even though they claim it) since only each device can encrypt the message.

@tiwil I am not sure about any officially using or inheld of ISIS on this App but one thing i know that Telegram is much favorite in Aljazeera countries such as Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, etc. .. so who knows how many of those are with ISIS or how much are not. And the first you said about E2EE encryption. I have same reviews. I cant find it in settings.

[tiwil]

And the first you said about E2EE encryption. I have same reviews. I cant find it in settings.

I see why. E2EE only applied in secret chats. This type of chat can only be accessed at one specific device where secret chat started, not all device like normal chat in Telegram. Search "does telegram use end to end encryption" on Google. Many says it's for secret chat while nobody say normal chat do have E2EE too.

Now I know why Whatsapp can only be used in one device. The decryption key only stored in one device and should not be transferred to any other device. While on the other hand, Telegram doesn't use E2EE, therefore their client can get the same message from any device at the same time since no decryption needed.

[deanhills]

I'm sure ISIS (if it really exists) can use any other end to end encryption app as well including Whatsapp.  So for me I question the motive for publishing the article about ISIS using Telegram and then when they discovered they were being tracked, Signal. It was obvious that the slant of the article was negative towards Telegram and Signal.  This paragraph specifically sounds incredible to me:

Muhammad Farid, a 23-year-old ISIS militant, was arrested on June 24 during a security raid on a flour mill in the outskirts of Peshawar where the group was planning a massive attack.

Farid confessed to interrogators after arrest that he had killed 32 people including 15 policemen and five sex workers Express Tribune reported.

However, it was the Afghan citizen’s phone revealed to security officials ISIS’s preferred method of communication.

If that event of June 24 really existed, why bring it up now? What is the motive behind the article? And how true are the facts?

[tiwil]

If that event of June 24 really existed, why bring it up now?  What is the motive behind the article?  And how true are the facts?

It's actually 2017 article, pretty old but still the same. People bringing this "fact" to public to show that Telegram doesn't use E2EE on normal chats. They (as the link I posted in previous post) only use E2EE in secret chats. There is no claim from Telegram that they use E2EE on normal nor group chats.

Also the article doesn't say that Signal is not encrypted. They only say, "Once they learnt that it was being tracked, they tried to shift to another encrypted app called Signal". For me, the article means that they was tracked by Telegram then moved to Signal since it's an encrypted chat app.
Therefore, this article says that Signal has encrypted chat so ISIS doesn't get tracked whenever they wanted to communicate. While on the other hand, Telegram doesn't have one since they can track down ISIS.

[tryp4vps]

..... Therefore, this article says that Signal has encrypted chat so ISIS doesn't get tracked whenever they wanted to communicate. While on the other hand, Telegram doesn't have one since they can track down ISIS.

But in fact ISIS could still use secret chats on Telegram to communicate, so that their messages could get encrypted and would not get tracked.

And back to the topic for Whatsapp. I think for most other users, normal chats do not really need encryption. As far as I can remember, Whatsapp also did not have encryption for many many years, and just started introducing encryption on around 2016.

[deanhills]

And back to the topic for Whatsapp. I think for most other users, normal chats do not really need encryption. As far as I can remember, Whatsapp also did not have encryption for many many years, and just started introducing encryption on around 2016.

That is true.  Whatsapp only started to introduce encryption in 2016 and that was after Zuckerman had acquired Whatsapp in 2014.

While I was looking at why Whatsapp was acquired by Zuckerman, I found this interesting article:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/cha...t-whatsapp

Almost so simple but totally makes sense why Zuckerman paid 19 Billion Dollars for WhatsApp.

WhatsApp was sending 8.2 billion messages a day compared to Facebook Messenger’s (on mobile) 3.5 billion.

From discussions at various Forums where members discussed their preferred app, quite a large number thought Telegram was much simpler and more sophisticated at the same time.  So I'm beginning to think that once WhatsApp has lost those large numbers to Telegram, possibly they won't be returning.

On the other hand there are also large numbers of users who are used to Whatsapp - like in the community I live all communications happen with Whatsapp - Whatsapp me - Are you on Whatsapp - always happen with communications. When I first arrived in this community I wasn't on Whatsapp and soon - even though I didn't want to - had to be if I wanted to be connected.
And now all of my contacts are connected with WhatsApp with lots of history with chat threads.  I won't change from WhatsApp until I see something that gives me cause for needing to change.  Which is when Facebook related messages start to pop up in my Whatsapp.

[xdude]

Nothing new in this since all these companies have been collecting all kinds of data since the beginning internet. They collect all this data and from time to time they get forced to disclose to us that. I don't think joining Singal or Telegram won't change it. Whatsapp has some idea about privacy once and then it was bought by Facebook. Can we be sure the same couldn't happen to these 2 apps? Also, I read that these 2 Apps have their own flows too.

I'm not taking the side of Facebook or anything. I do like the whole vibe about people moving to other platforms. But I don't think it will hurt WhatsApp too badly. But losing a considerable number of users might make them rethink any future plans of milking users' data. Any popular App which based in either the USA or China has backdoors to their government agencies. You can be sure about that. Whatever they say in public and in court these companies do what they need to do to survive.

[tryp4vps]

...... When I first arrived in this community I wasn't on Whatsapp and soon - even though I didn't want to - had to be if I wanted to be connected.
And now all of my contacts are connected with WhatsApp with lots of history with chat threads.  I won't change from WhatsApp until I see something that gives me cause for needing to change.  Which is when Facebook related messages start to pop up in my Whatsapp.

I am on the same boat. I was also quite late to start using Whatsapp. At the moment when I started to install Whatsapp, almost all of my friends have already been using it for quite a while.

So, I was actually "forced" to go communicate through Whatsapp. And sadly until now, after the recent Whatsapp's policy issue, still not many of my contacts have moved or are going to move to Telegram.

[fChk]

That is true.  Whatsapp only started to introduce encryption in 2016 and that was after Zuckerman had acquired Whatsapp in 2014.

Whose Zuckerman ? :-)

End-to-end encryption (E2E) was forced upon IT big Corps after Snowden's leaks blowback and the huge movement for encrypting the Web that followed starting in 2015.

Thus E2E was forced upon those service providers to re-gain their users trust.. but I'm confident that even if their system works as it should they must have some kind of back door for when their authorities need it. Yes, I don't have any proof to back this up, but I can't imagine it otherwise.

And yes!.. I've never used any social media service: the old ones or the new kids on the block. Even for Google, nowadays, GMail is the only service that I'm still using for few old contacts. Thus, I'll drop it as soon as they become obsolete.

We've really enjoyed the Internet and the Web during its 'years of innocence'. Because after 9 / 11 it's been weaponized by the powers that be and it simply gotten worst ever since... which is a shame!...

My 2 cents.

[deanhills]

Whose Zuckerman ? :-)

Haha @fChk. Someone who is wide awake. I meant Mark Zuckerberg. I knew it was Zucker-something. Then typed in Zucker, and looks like Zuckerman was very wealthy. But yes, that is incorrect. Correct person I was referring to was the owner of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg.