[zzz61831]

Sort of, there is pseudoanonimity layer in Telegram that doesn't show your phone number to others, so if you can be reasonably sure that Telegram isn't going to give you up to the police of your country - your privacy can be preserved. While Signal literally identifies contacts via phone numbers and there is no mass communication features anyway, so it's both less private and less useful for such purposes.

[kome]

> Signal literally identifies contacts via phone numbers

that's so stupid.

why people here keeps arguing that Signal crypto is safer when its architecture is SO unsafe?

[samat]

Their crypto is state of the art, but their ops sec threat model does not include “we’ll torture you or go to your mobile operator and their would cooperate fully”. So signal is good for USA, not so good for 3rd world countries. This people making decisions in Signal live in a different world then most of the people who need secure comms. Well telegram have us covered. Sadly, if you stop trusting Durov - you are screwed. Signal is much better in that regard.

[maqp]

"Sadly, if you stop trusting Durov - you are screwed"

Or if anyone hacks Telegram server, you're also screwed.

[maqp]

Because that removes the need of server to know your contact list?

Telegram knows who you are and who you talk to, they store your contact list. Signal knows who you are, but they don't store your contact list.

Also, Signal is already working on usernames. Your criticism is just silly.

[sam_lowry_]

Because they are NSA spooks?

[maqp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM

[Krasnol]

When I installed Telegram for the first time, people in my address book saw me and wrote me. How did that happen?

[maqp]

Because Telegram uses phone's contact list for contact discovery. There's nothing unusual about this. This how Signal, Riot, Threema, Wire and dozens and dozens of messengers work.

[Krasnol]

So just like Signal?

Why is that being brought up as difference?