GreyCat

There are a lot of things you can survive without :)) They are still nice to have though.

But I understand the privacy concerns, I struggle with the tradeoffs myself. But to me it's worth it it this case since the database is supposed to be encrypted with a passphrase and stored locally, not sent over a network.

Other examples would include searching through history to check if you've talked to someone about something. Or check their answer. Unless you are someone with perfect memory I would think these are common situations.

I agree that we are fine even without it. But that does not mean it's better than not having that history.

An easy example that comes to mind are all arguments wherr someone remembers one thing while someone else remembers another thing.

I agree with you about saving the things you need. Especially images and videos since they are not worth the storage size.

But a history of your conversations with people is pretty nice to have if you didn't think about saving some info or it only becomes relevant later on. And as long it's only kept on your own device, I'm fine with it. (But I guess, on the devices of people you speak to)

Plus if you only save text, even 10 years worth of data is not much at all. A few videos probably weighs more.

E: typo

I don't think you need to send info for a GPS client to work. You are just a receiver, no data sent.

I think tuta does

I don't agree with what the others are saying.
You'll get the benefits of Tor as you would on any other site. And you'll help the Tor network by using the service and keeping other users more private.
Just be mindful about what you say about yourself

The thing is I think he did think of stuff like this.
From what the article says and from what I knew. Telegram purposefuly made "distributed cross-jurisdictional encrypted cloud storage" to try and evade governments. So he did have them in mind.
If we lived in a world where we didn't have to think about governments spying on us, we might have not even needed encryption to begin with.

But thank you for the link, it was an interesting read even if I don't agree with what he's trying to convey / prove.

It would not be the same, access might remain public but if it was E2EE and not stored on Telegram's servers, new users wouldn't have access to the history of the channel.
And since Telegram would not be able to read the messages as they go through its servers, they would have plausible deniability if they were asked if they knew what was going on on which channels.

I don't think Signal is the best messenger out there, I do think it's an good compromise between privacy and to have a enough appeal that most people would use it. I don't agree with most of what I have read Moxie write. But thanks for judging and generalizing by guessing who I must be.
You are right that it's probably more of a social network.

Assuming things should work that way is ignorant. According to you, service owners should design and redesign their services to not store any data in order to avoid arrests.

If they don't want to be arrested yes, they should either do that or have good enough moderation to not get in the bad graces of some big entities like countries.

I'm not sure what you meant with the rest of your comment.

The problem is that those guys comply with the requests from governments.

It is about encryption though. Since it's possible for him to get access to anything said in those group chats, they asked him to provide all Telegram has on those users and chats. He didn't, he got arrested.

He wouldn't have been in as much trouble if those chats were encrypted and Telegram couldn't know anything about what's said in what chat by which user.

Because hw wouldn't be "betraying" his users by giving everything that was asked of him by the authorities.

It's basically source available with rights to modify and redistribute for non-commercial purposes and without removing the ability to pay for the app.

Here is the license.