• @rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    125 days ago

    Cool. So that gives people authority to say “if it’s used by signal and is standardized then it should be used by everyone”?

        • @rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          024 days ago

          I think you are arguing against your own imagination. Something not being vetted by someone competent does mean it’s bogus in cryptography. Standardization is an unconnected subject. Most police forces over the world right now are using something standardized, but known to be utter crap.

          I think you are falling for the “genius inventor” fallacy clueless normies love a lot.

          TG’s E2EE is simply garbage until known otherwise. There’s no more depth to it. The reason it’s not known to be broken is that it’s not a high value target - most people don’t use “secret chats” in TG.

          • @rdri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            124 days ago

            I think you are falling for the “genius inventor” fallacy clueless normies love a lot.

            People advertising signal everywhere look like those kind of normies to me too. Doesn’t mean much.

            The reason it’s not known to be broken is that it’s not a high value target - most people don’t use “secret chats” in TG.

            Fair assumption. But it means you accept most people are stupid enough to not want such a feature or smart enough to not need it. Telegram user base is reported to be 900 million though.

            • @rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              124 days ago

              So where am I advertising Signal?

              But it means you accept most people are stupid enough to not want such a feature or smart enough to not need it. Telegram user base is reported to be 900 million though.

              I didn’t get this.