According to Pavel Durov: "We know some people may get concerned about the potential misuse of this feature or the permanence of their inboxes. We thought carefully through those issues, but we...
According to Pavel Durov:
"We know some people may get concerned about the potential misuse of this feature or the permanence of their inboxes. We thought carefully through those issues, but we think the benefit of having control over your digital footprint is more important."
Emphasis on "your". This allows the manipulation of someone's else digital footprint, and the destruction of someone's else messages - not just your own. No, I don't believe their "we thought...
we think the benefit of having control over your digital footprint is more important.
Emphasis on "your". This allows the manipulation of someone's else digital footprint, and the destruction of someone's else messages - not just your own.
No, I don't believe their "we thought carefully through".
Their original ability to delete a message was one of the reasons I really like telegram, though I never used it. Still I like the idea. Glad for this update.
Their original ability to delete a message was one of the reasons I really like telegram, though I never used it. Still I like the idea. Glad for this update.
I can delete messages that the other person sent for both of us. How was this considered a good idea? There are so. many. ways. this can be abused. I am constantly surprised how developers of...
I can delete messages that the other person sent for both of us. How was this considered a good idea? There are so. many. ways. this can be abused. I am constantly surprised how developers of communications software assume that everyone is just going to get along all the time, that everyone is going to be perfectly behaved in all situations. It boggles my mind. Do they not actually use the software they develop?
That still doesn't make it a good idea, though. How is this a good idea? I can think of far more ways it can be abused than used as intended. My point about developers assuming everyone has good...
That still doesn't make it a good idea, though. How is this a good idea? I can think of far more ways it can be abused than used as intended. My point about developers assuming everyone has good intentions at all times stands. This is absolutely a quirk of modern social tools; pretty much every older social tool (IRC, Usenet, email, even AIM and other older IM tools) have / had ways to block people.
Thats the worst part though. This feature essentially allows people to retroactively revoke an agreement and delete any proof from both sides devices. There are countless ways this can be abused....
Thats the worst part though. This feature essentially allows people to retroactively revoke an agreement and delete any proof from both sides devices. There are countless ways this can be abused. Telegram already allowed you to delete messages for a few minutes after you sent them which covers the "Shit, sent that to the wrong person" case. The only use case for this feature is destruction of proof. You can't unsend a message one its sent. Its still in the mind of the receiver only they are unable to show anyone now.
This on top of a bunch of other pretend privacy features make me distrust them even more. There really is a strong need to move to something with real privacy and actual open source like Matrix.
IM messages are extremely common sources of proof in legal cases. Are you going to ask a date to sign a paper stating that you were indeed invited over in a more than friends way or are you going...
IM messages are extremely common sources of proof in legal cases. Are you going to ask a date to sign a paper stating that you were indeed invited over in a more than friends way or are you going to discuss it over IM
Being invited over is probably in the range of "why would they even delete the invite?" If they are that malicious they'd manage it another way. And again, you can just take a screenshot of the...
Being invited over is probably in the range of "why would they even delete the invite?" If they are that malicious they'd manage it another way.
And again, you can just take a screenshot of the message if you want.
I can imagine several situations in which I wanted to delete what the other conversation partner said for non-malicious, private reasons. One might be whenever my neighbor sends me her password so...
I can imagine several situations in which I wanted to delete what the other conversation partner said for non-malicious, private reasons. One might be whenever my neighbor sends me her password so I can check if her email still works. I'd rather delete that because she usually doesn't quite recognize that sending it around is a bad idea no matter how often I tell her.
I would really want to know from a lawyer if there is any binding agreement of chats at least in the U.S, You can also export chats too in JSON or HTML in Telegram but they can be edited easily.
I would really want to know from a lawyer if there is any binding agreement of chats at least in the U.S, You can also export chats too in JSON or HTML in Telegram but they can be edited easily.
You could likely also hack your phone to insert messages into your Telegram (maybe spoof the Telegram app?). From what I've been told during the computer law lectures, agreements over chat, phone...
You could likely also hack your phone to insert messages into your Telegram (maybe spoof the Telegram app?).
From what I've been told during the computer law lectures, agreements over chat, phone or in person are at first non-binding until there is a formal confirmation (ie, you click on an order button on a website or sign the papers).
Good, I guess? How's the general evilness status of Telegram? I've started to talk some friends and family into using it over WhatsApp to escape the grip Facebook, Inc a little and was pleasantly...
Good, I guess? How's the general evilness status of Telegram? I've started to talk some friends and family into using it over WhatsApp to escape the grip Facebook, Inc a little and was pleasantly surprised just how easy it is because of how basic the service is, really. I don't know much about Telegram as a company, though.
This comment outlines some concerns with Telegram. The biggest evilness concern would be their connection to VK, though the homebrew encryption thing is a similar level of concern, and the point I...
general evilness status of Telegram
This comment outlines some concerns with Telegram. The biggest evilness concern would be their connection to VK, though the homebrew encryption thing is a similar level of concern, and the point I made elsethread about their volunteer support should be something you keep in mind as well.
Thanks. I guess it's hard to find a non-controversial service, these days. I think I'll stick with it for the time being, to me it's less a crypto issue than moving away from facebook.
Thanks. I guess it's hard to find a non-controversial service, these days. I think I'll stick with it for the time being, to me it's less a crypto issue than moving away from facebook.
According to Pavel Durov:
"We know some people may get concerned about the potential misuse of this feature or the permanence of their inboxes. We thought carefully through those issues, but we think the benefit of having control over your digital footprint is more important."
Emphasis on "your". This allows the manipulation of someone's else digital footprint, and the destruction of someone's else messages - not just your own.
No, I don't believe their "we thought carefully through".
Their original ability to delete a message was one of the reasons I really like telegram, though I never used it. Still I like the idea. Glad for this update.
I can delete messages that the other person sent for both of us. How was this considered a good idea? There are so. many. ways. this can be abused. I am constantly surprised how developers of communications software assume that everyone is just going to get along all the time, that everyone is going to be perfectly behaved in all situations. It boggles my mind. Do they not actually use the software they develop?
see @guts's comment upthread: they did think about that, they just think the benefits outweigh the costs.
That still doesn't make it a good idea, though. How is this a good idea? I can think of far more ways it can be abused than used as intended. My point about developers assuming everyone has good intentions at all times stands. This is absolutely a quirk of modern social tools; pretty much every older social tool (IRC, Usenet, email, even AIM and other older IM tools) have / had ways to block people.
Also keep in mind this only applies to "Private" chats, not all chats.
Thats the worst part though. This feature essentially allows people to retroactively revoke an agreement and delete any proof from both sides devices. There are countless ways this can be abused. Telegram already allowed you to delete messages for a few minutes after you sent them which covers the "Shit, sent that to the wrong person" case. The only use case for this feature is destruction of proof. You can't unsend a message one its sent. Its still in the mind of the receiver only they are unable to show anyone now.
This on top of a bunch of other pretend privacy features make me distrust them even more. There really is a strong need to move to something with real privacy and actual open source like Matrix.
Telegram messages aren't a good basis for any sort of binding agreement, for that you want paper with signatures.
Or maybe make a screenshot.
IM messages are extremely common sources of proof in legal cases. Are you going to ask a date to sign a paper stating that you were indeed invited over in a more than friends way or are you going to discuss it over IM
Being invited over is probably in the range of "why would they even delete the invite?" If they are that malicious they'd manage it another way.
And again, you can just take a screenshot of the message if you want.
Why even have the feature in the first place? There are next to no non malicious uses for it.
I can imagine several situations in which I wanted to delete what the other conversation partner said for non-malicious, private reasons. One might be whenever my neighbor sends me her password so I can check if her email still works. I'd rather delete that because she usually doesn't quite recognize that sending it around is a bad idea no matter how often I tell her.
I would really want to know from a lawyer if there is any binding agreement of chats at least in the U.S, You can also export chats too in JSON or HTML in Telegram but they can be edited easily.
You could likely also hack your phone to insert messages into your Telegram (maybe spoof the Telegram app?).
From what I've been told during the computer law lectures, agreements over chat, phone or in person are at first non-binding until there is a formal confirmation (ie, you click on an order button on a website or sign the papers).
Good, I guess? How's the general evilness status of Telegram? I've started to talk some friends and family into using it over WhatsApp to escape the grip Facebook, Inc a little and was pleasantly surprised just how easy it is because of how basic the service is, really. I don't know much about Telegram as a company, though.
This comment outlines some concerns with Telegram. The biggest evilness concern would be their connection to VK, though the homebrew encryption thing is a similar level of concern, and the point I made elsethread about their volunteer support should be something you keep in mind as well.
What i recall Pavel was the founder of VK but left after the government took over VK, Pavel left Russia after that.
Thanks. I guess it's hard to find a non-controversial service, these days. I think I'll stick with it for the time being, to me it's less a crypto issue than moving away from facebook.