After listening to today's WAN show discussion on the subject of Telegram, I've decided to write a long-read for this community. My aim isn't to take sides, but to provide context as I see it. Whether this proves helpful or not, I'm open to feedback and corrections.

Telegram is undeniably controversial. It's primarily used in post-Soviet Union countries, faces rumors of FSB control, and sees surges in user numbers in countries experiencing various forms of protest. Many governments are attempting to either gain access to Telegram's encryption keys or block the service entirely.

Why am I sharing my perspective? I come from a country where Telegram was extensively used during the 2020 protests. As a Linux enthusiast and former software developer, I have some technical understanding, though I'm not an encryption expert. More importantly, I have firsthand knowledge of Telegram's impact on my people's lives, and I'm grateful for its existence.

My view on Telegram is separate from my opinion of Durov himself. If he has collaborated with malicious entities and faces legal consequences, so be it. If this leads to Telegram's demise, that's life.

However, I'm deeply concerned about the implications. If they come for Telegram, what's to stop governments from targeting WhatsApp, Signal, or others? Does having end-to-end encryption by default essentially become proactive complicity with nefarious organizations in their eyes?

In the following sections, I'll explore various aspects of Telegram, its role in different societies, and the challenges it faces. I hope this long-read will provide valuable insights into why Telegram matters to many people around the world.

The Bane – No Encryption (?)

When discussing Telegram's encryption, it's important to clarify: Telegram DOES NOT enable end-to-end (e2e) encryption by default, but it DOES encrypt all traffic. I am tired of all the news "Telegram does not provide encryption by default, duh". While it's true that the data isn't completely secure, it's inaccurate to label Telegram as unsafe. Although the data is stored unencrypted on the server (or better, distributed across various jurisdictions servers), potentially allowing unauthorized access by employees, it does prevent unauthorized access from third parties during transmission.

Telegram justifies the choice of not having e2e encryption by default as a means to provide more capabilities to users. Several legitimate features benefit from this approach:

• Enormous group chats where people communicate from multiple devices interchangeably. (E2e encryption would require a complex scheme of cross-signing every message to handle tens of thousands of users casually reading and posting from more than one device.)
• Community-run bots instead of Telegram-operated ones. Administrators can choose which bots to deploy or even write their own for moderating, automated banning, or simply adding humor to the chat.

The decision not to use e2e by default is debatable, but Telegram's approach isn't entirely dismissive of security concerns.

Some cryptography experts have criticized Telegram's use of a custom protocol instead of well-established ones. While this isn't necessarily problematic, it does present the potential for zero-day vulnerabilities. However, there have been no reported successful attempts to break their MTProto protocol as far as I'm aware.

Telegram's MTProto protocol combines:

• RSA 2048-bit encryption
• 256-bit symmetric AES encryption
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange

This combination is designed to provide secure communication over untrusted networks. Telegram has even enabled the creation of third-party-handled MTProto proxy servers with obfuscation to hide Telegram traffic and prevent DMA-filtering.

Based on personal experience, here are some valuable safety features:

1. Anonymity for group admins: While it could be improved, this feature offers some protection for the high-profile targets.
2. Secret chats: These are peer-to-peer, e2e encrypted, and device-specific. If you initiate a secret chat after a potential security breach, the conversation will remain secure and won't be duplicated to any (even authorized) devices.

All in all, Telegram offers a comprehensive set of safety features, balancing user convenience with security options. However, it's crucial to note that if a malicious party were to gain access to Telegram's servers, user data could be compromised. The extent of exposure remains unknown. When choosing communication tools, users should carefully consider their specific security needs and the potential risks associated with each platform.

The Fame – No Oversight (?)

France is the first among developed countries to seek control over Telegram, with Germany following. Their claims about Telegram's lack of cooperation with law enforcement may have some merit. However, I see this as a threat to my safety and safety of my people. The thing is, that many more autocratic countries started well-ahead on the way of getting their hands on Telegram data.

In 2020, protests in my home country were repressed without a fairy-tail ending, the regime did not crumble after the autocrat lost the election. Had we succeeded, the war with Ukraine might not have happened, or at least not from our soil. Belarusians never supported the invasion – only the regime did. And this is a very sad chapter for most of Belarusians.

Since 2020, people are being detained indefinitely for various reasons, like comments in chats made before 2020, likes on Facebook, sharing news with our old national flag, donations to charities.

We have almost 1500 recognized political prisoners, thousands more unrecognized, and tens of thousands already freed but not free. Just recently, a removed acquaintance of mine — a senior lady — was jailed for sending food to prisoners' relatives. Her family is also either jailed or has left the country. Such stories are common now. In August 30 political prisoners were pardoned, but since then more has become ones. People are detained even when crossing borders or in Russia, as authorities work together. Any sign of disloyalty online can lead to prosecution.

In this context, Telegram became a safe haven: it provides uncensored news channels to millions, offers proxies when countries ban it or shut down the internet, protects admin identities, allows self-deleting messages and secret chats. When questioned, your phone will be unlocked and your chats analyzed. But self-deleting messages and secret chats won't be there. We avoid direct discussions of forbidden topics, effectively living under a You-know-who's regime.

As we care for privacy, we know a lot about Telegram's issues. We are not blind. We know there are issues like data dumps can reveal groups you've left, or pre-2021 vulnerability exposed real names and you have to destroy an older account in order to untether your online identity.

Telegram isn't perfect, but it's kept many people safe. So far, we don't know of anyone detained because Telegram gave up their info. Detentions usually happen through infiltrated admins or other charges leading to phone checks.

And Telegram does ban some content:

• Adult chats/groups are not widely available on Apple devices
• Users can report messages for various abuses, including child abuse or gun violence
• Channels sharing personal details of authorities are banned for inciting violence
• There are government-imposed restrictions in UAE and Iran

This suggests Telegram does work with some governments and cares about platform misuse. But they're a small company with a large user base and need to improve their communication.

We're at a crucial point in defining acceptable levels of cooperation between governments, platforms, and users. Not every government should be trusted with information, even with a court order, and at the same time it is important to cooperate if this helps to stop atrocities. For the better of humanity.

The Shame – No Future (?)

My main concern with Telegram is that they've taken on too much and are now overstretched. Consider their situation:

• They have only a few dozen employees
• They support a distributed messaging platform with huge user-base
• Telegram offers more messaging features than popular alternatives like WhatsApp
• They're working on monetization to ensure long-term sustainability without resources like Meta's

As a user, I've felt neglected for years. Telegram has been focusing on features for businesses, increasing user engagement, growing their user base, and therefore building up revenue with eventual IPO. Meanwhile, users like me still struggle with mind-boggling appearance configuration settings, which won't stick, a few desired improvements to safety, and other minor but frustrating issues. I have ideas for improvements but no way to share them effectively. Even when my account was banned (presumably by mistake), my attempts to fix the issue went unanswered.

I believe Telegram has hit its ceiling and is now pushing hard for monetization, and the new pressure from European countries may stop their advance and they may fail to achieve sustainability. If they fail to do so, we may lose the most available obscure messenger available for people living under repression. Other platforms will likely rise to take its place, but they'll probably hit the same ceiling.

The cycle may continue, leaving users in a constant state of uncertainty about their communication tools' future and reliability.

PS I am sorry for the throwaway, but I have reasons to avoid too much attention.