Will you stick with Whatsapp?

Will you stick with Whatsapp?

  • Yes - I have no concerns/I don't care

    Votes: 380 42.7%
  • Yes - albeit reluctantly/I don't have a choice

    Votes: 259 29.1%
  • No - I will (or have already) moved on

    Votes: 231 26.0%
  • I've never used Whatsapp

    Votes: 4 0.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.8%

  • Total voters
    890
Ok, now read your post again but this time emphasis on "YOU are the product if something is free."

How is Telegram and Signal better if its also free?

Not really, there are plenty of free things that don't make you the product.
 
I'm most probably going to delete my FB account. Don't really use it much. Use Whatsapp far more.

I just don't like being forced to share all my numbers with FB.
I don't have all my numbers on whatsapp either.
 
Telegram just seems so needy when they insist on announcing whenever someone you know joins. Blocking that "feature" meant removing all access to my contacts so it's pretty much a useless app now.

Huh? It’s just a box you tick off.

And it makes a lot of sense as the new kid on the block to inform people and hence facilitate a soft migration.

Immediately new users feel welcome and automatically start using it.
 
I don't have issues with Telegram as such (it has some great features in and among its annoyances), but ditching WhatsApp for Telegram if you are concerned with privacy is a bit disingenuous. Telegram chats aren't end-to-end encrypted by default, and group chats aren't encrypted at all (if I understand correctly).

Telegram is also at its root an advertising company, and though its business model differs from that of Facebook / WhatsApp in a number of fairly important technical points, but in the end, they use data in similar ways to what Facebook does. Others such as Signal, Threema, Wire or Wickr don't have this problem, they have entirely different models.

So to me it seems like deciding you don't like German cars, ditching your VW, and buying an Opel instead.

Everything is encrypted, I wish people could understand that client-to-client and client-to-server-to-client is all still encryption.

And the reason it’s like that is for those very features that sets it apart.

Also, where do you get to it being an advertising company? It’s a not-for-profit effort that will make use of ads to pay its operational costs in the future.

That doesn’t make it an advertising company.

 
Huh? It’s just a box you tick off.
No, that just disables the push notification. A chat is still created every single time a contact joins. The only way to stop it is to prevent Telegram from accessing your contacts.
 
I bet the people who move to telegram on their own accord tape up webcams on their laptops...right?
 
Some say this (they don't care that their info is stolen) some say that (they do not want their info stolen) but I, for one, have already moved across to Telegram as have a number of my contacts. From what I have been reading there are millions who have already made the (dare I say) upgrade...but each to their own...
 
Just pointing out that Telegram has a really cute sticker set of Elon Musk.
 
Everything is encrypted, I wish people could understand that client-to-client and client-to-server-to-client is all still encryption.

And the reason it’s like that is for those very features that sets it apart.
I'm not sure what those terms mean, I've not seen them used before. Data is encrypted in transit of course, but that's industry standard these days.

But unless you turn on the "secret chat" feature, the chats are not end-to-end encrypted. And group chats are never end-to-and encrypted. So sure, if your traffic is intercepted by your ISP then it's safe, it's an SSL connection from you to Telegram HQ, but Telegram HQ can read the content of your group chats if they want.

Encrypting group chats properly is hard, and once the group gets large, you'll take a real performance hit if you want to keep it encrypted. Signal explains it here:

The fact that Telegram groups can get so large sets it apart I guess, but then you must understand that it comes at the expense of E2EE.

This lack of E2EE plus the "feature" of storing your messages on their servers (unlike WhatsApp or Signal which store only long enough to deliver the message) has led to Telegram being the subject of a number of hacks where user data and messages were exposed. So their record is a bit patchy as far as security is concerned...

Edit: I went and read through Telegram's own documentation, and ok, I now realise a bit more what you meant. They store their "cloud messages" encrypted, but they also have the keys to decrypt them. Ok, they are on a different server in a different jurisdiction, so that makes it a bit more secure against random hacks or state data demands, but it still gives Telegram themselves the ability to read your conversations if they wanted to.

Durov writes about how their system is better than the E2EE choice made by Whatsapp / Signal. His points make sense. If you agree with his reasoning, then Telegram might be suitable for you. I personally disagree, but that's just me.

Also, where do you get to it being an advertising company? It’s a not-for-profit effort that will make use of ads to pay its operational costs in the future.

That doesn’t make it an advertising company.
Yeah ok that's fair, I went and did some reading and I learn now that while Durov also founded VK, it was sold to mail.ru before Telegram was started, so there's no link between the two. I was under the impression that a similar link exists as between WhatsApp and Facebook currently. In that I was mistaken.

Still, while Durov claims that Telegram is not-for-profit... it's incorporated as a normal LLC, and not an NPO as say the Signal Foundation is. Which makes me more than a little bit suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Information privacy is like having a cube, and allowing some company to pick it up. Totally harmless right ? As far as we thought, they're only using it for squat exercises. How ever because we let them pick it up, they can also hit us over the head with it.

Tailored ads - Why aren't tailored ads a problem ? people all say they just skip it, even though some applications are littered with annoying ads, we bare with them. But if ads didn't work, there wouldn't be a massive market surrounding it, which means these ads are causing people to spend more, to click on them.
On the bright side, I don't mind searching for a plumber on google and finding a relevant ad.

The thing is, we've been giving information out for years. There's generic information, which can be collected by 1 person and that information when processed will work on 100 people. They can also use the information for finding trends, population of millions of different statistics, it makes a lot of things impersonal.

I believe XB and PS has the permission of its players to process player chat messages, and these companies can look for keywords to populate profiles - "i am a lizard" will populate your race tab, and show you bloodworms the next time you're browsing a site with third party code on it. Or show you certain news because you joked about being a democrat. How ever the data shows you're not american so it shows you a different spectrum of that information.

Not sure if it was steve jobs or who ever, but they did mention that in this age, programming should be known by all individuals as they know their first and second languages. One case where this is applicable is when as someone joked earlier there's only one road to las vegas, even though it's vulture ridden and fuel is short. With coding you create a new road.

When you put identification aside, that being what classifies an individual and data collection of the sort you're left with what many believe to be non-invasive use of information. Microsoft may use a heat map on whatsapp to find out which part of the app people use the most, what's used the least, and then make the least used areas of the app fancier to draw more attention and usage from its consumers. Creating a game that causes us to spend more time with what before was unimportant.

I do wonder though, for a messenger app, exactly what information does Microsoft collect, and how is it used ? With whatsapp you literally only populate a few fields of data.. username, status message, profile image, anything else ? They could probably collect usage times, generate network maps which shows them which numbers are connected to which other numbers and level these, Say you've a few thousand people, they don't all know bob, but on a second or third connection they may. Microsoft realizes that if they show bob that new iphone ad and he purchases one the other connections may follow even though bob only knows some of them. It's a probability factor. Microsoft could on a bad case scenario have a leak and those maps reach russian hackers who now have maps of connected numbers, after a bit of research they figure these maps can show them which contacts are connected to which businesses, and social engineer their way into company funds.

Finally we're able to predict the weather to a point, as such by collecting user data and letting people who are employed to make something of this data - companies gain control over their users, and not just their users as said before here is information that can be used generically that works with a lot more people, and this control over a period of time works like predicting the weather. We can't change the weather, but tailored ads, keywords, relations and so forth can be used to profit by predicting peoples actions.

Perhaps I should title this the data cold war. It's all behind the scenes but it's happening, where in a real war where whatsapps' the dominant mobile social network road to vegas.. :oops:
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X