While everyone gives lip-service to protecting customers’ privacy these days, many major US tech companies are known to be in bed with the NSA on wholesale surveillance. It’s tough to know, then, how seriously to take security promises from such companies.<\/p>\n
A good rule of thumb, however, might be derived from Telegram<\/a>, an open-sourced private messaging application with a soaring user base. While government officials sort of pooh-pooh anything that seems too private, the reaction to Telegram is downright apoplectic<\/a>.<\/p>\n Several European officials are reacting with absolute fury toward Telegram for being a serious obstacle to surveillance, with French officials complaining they struggled to even find ways to get in touch with the company to demand they hand over information.<\/p>\n Even then, they’re not getting the chat logs from Telegram, because part of the design infrastructure ensuring the privacy of such chats is that the company doesn’t keep chat logs in the first place, and therefore has nothing to hand over.<\/p>\n The hostility toward Telegram, and the claims that they’re facilitating ISIS because their service isn’t built to be spied on, is a good indication that they’re doing their job pretty well.<\/p>\n Indeed, officials are calling Telegram a “technological nightmare,” which for people who don’t want those officials reading what they write can only be a good thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" While everyone gives lip-service to protecting customers’ privacy these days, many major US tech companies are known to be in bed with the NSA on wholesale surveillance. It’s tough to know, then, how seriously to take security promises from such companies. A good rule of thumb, however, might be derived from Telegram, an open-sourced private […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-27677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27677"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27677\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27678,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27677\/revisions\/27678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27677"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}