But by default the comms aren’t end-to-end encrypted. Isn’t desiderable that criminals use telegram rather than signal?
The fact that Signal has not run into legal trouble when Telegram has.
Also Signal has some really shady practices, such as rejecting and killing all third party clients.
Not being end-to-end encrypted is meaningless to law enforcement if Telegram refuses to turn over the chat contents (which they do). Law enforcement can’t just eavesdrop on the conversation without Telegram’s cooperation. The chat contents are still secured by TLS from the user’s device to the Telegram servers.
Smart professional criminals rarely use Telegram for this stuff anyway. There’s WhatsApp and plenty of other popular platforms of end-to-end encrypted
if Telegram refuses to turn over the chat contents (which they do)
Source?
Law enforcement can’t just eavesdrop on the conversation without Telegram’s cooperation
Why do you think Roskomnadzor gave up their blockage plans in 2018? And then made their own official government channels? “It’s technically difficult for us” has never stopped Roskomnadzor before.
The source is this article.
It’s not just “technically difficult” to eavesdrop. Properly implemented, it’s computationally impossible to eavesdrop on a connection secured with TLS.
