except, implementing E2EE via 3rd party FOSS clients is explicitly against Telegram’s TOS, which I’m gonna assume you already know as you’re parroting weirdo’s stance “all crypto is broken by NSA, so we’re better off without”. take care.
First time I read about such thing being included in TOS. Care to link something relevant? I can’t imagine how they are going to control that or ban any client or wipe data transmitted by them.
you must’ve me confused with someone who does shit on your behest, go find out yourself.
this is just for onlookers, as it’s obvious it’s weirdo’s shill: the term in the ToS is “all comms must be readable by all other clients” which an E2EE capable client would be in breach of and would be promptly kicked off telegram’s infra, as was mentioned by those same FOSS developers in lemmy threads regarding that subject. as for you, plonk.
except, implementing E2EE via 3rd party FOSS clients is explicitly against Telegram’s TOS, which I’m gonna assume you already know as you’re parroting weirdo’s stance “all crypto is broken by NSA, so we’re better off without”. take care.
No, I’m not saying that.
First time I read about such thing being included in TOS. Care to link something relevant? I can’t imagine how they are going to control that or ban any client or wipe data transmitted by them.
you must’ve me confused with someone who does shit on your behest, go find out yourself.
this is just for onlookers, as it’s obvious it’s weirdo’s shill: the term in the ToS is “all comms must be readable by all other clients” which an E2EE capable client would be in breach of and would be promptly kicked off telegram’s infra, as was mentioned by those same FOSS developers in lemmy threads regarding that subject. as for you, plonk.
It doesn’t work like that. Encrypted messages will not become unreadable for other clients. They will become undecryptable for users of other clients.