..on Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 06:03:28AM -0800, Kurtis Heimerl wrote:
> This is interesting. I had a discussion with an activist in the past who
> mentioned that telegram offers state actors access to telegram groups if
> threatened with in-country blocks of some kind. While this should be taken
>
..on Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 06:03:28AM -0800, Kurtis Heimerl wrote:
> This is interesting. I had a discussion with an activist in the past who
> mentioned that telegram offers state actors access to telegram groups if
> threatened with in-country blocks of some kind. While this should be taken
>
Thanks, Kurtis. That's my sense too.
So do we all on the list agree that Signal is the gold standard right now?
If so, I'll start recommending Signal (except in those states where it's
blocked due to the Google issue):
This is interesting. I had a discussion with an activist in the past who
mentioned that telegram offers state actors access to telegram groups if
threatened with in-country blocks of some kind. While this should be taken
with a grain of salt, being hearsay and all, it makes sense to me as
(afaik)
Here's a follow-up email with additional details/questions:
Nowadays, Telegram is the main channel for us to coordinate and hold
> pro-democracy rallies and protests. We like Telegram because it provides
> private messaging. We don't know how, but the regime appears to be hacking
> into,
A pro-democracy activist would like me to inform you of the following:
Telegram is supposed to be encrypted. Yet the regime appears capable of
> attacking the privacy of our group members, disrupting the ability of our
> members to access news or communicate with each other. For example, one of
>
