🚨 Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on Saturday
allegedly as part of an investigation into his platform for not having
enough "moderation."

<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64613>

<https://archive.ph/d133e>

D. Ray:

> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
> platform for not having enough "moderation."

It is not so much about moderation as about his pricipal
refusal to disclose the encryption keys to third parties
(including the Russian government).

Considering the extensive use of Telegram by the Russian
military as a means of secure communication on the Ukrainian
front (for lack of a better one), the sad joke here is the
they arrested our Chief of Communications. Rumours have it
that Durov has anticipated his arrest and activated a
security protocol ensuring the French not get access.

WhatsApp is an instrument of CIA espionage, and even
Zuckerberg of Facebook went so low as to beg parton for not
cooperating with the CIA as actively as he should. This is
"democracy" in action, and Durov ought to have learned the
danger of playing cosmopolite.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Mon, 26 Aug 24 01:14:57 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:

>? Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on Saturday
>allegedly as part of an investigation into his platform for not having
>enough "moderation."
>
><https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64613>
>
><https://archive.ph/d133e>

This is the beginning of a frightening shift towards tyranny.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 07:30:59 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Aug 24 01:14:57 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>? Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on Saturday
>>allegedly as part of an investigation into his platform for not having
>>enough "moderation."
>><https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64613>
>><https://archive.ph/d133e>
>
>This is the beginning of a frightening shift towards tyranny.

nothing changes > can't fight city hall < nothing changes

D <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 07:30:59 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 Aug 24 01:14:57 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>>>? Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on Saturday
>>>allegedly as part of an investigation into his platform for not having
>>>enough "moderation."
>>><https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64613>
>>><https://archive.ph/d133e>
>>
>>This is the beginning of a frightening shift towards tyranny.
>
> nothing changes > can't fight city hall < nothing changes

There is /one change/ here with this.

For 'internet based businesses' one is attacked by numerous city
hall's, each wanting a consession incompatible with the next city
hall's requested consession.

Followups trimmed to: comp.misc

In comp.misc Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
> D. Ray:
>
>> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
>> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
>> platform for not having enough "moderation."

From what I have read, I believe this seems to be the
case.

I do not know anything about French Law, but arresting *and*
prosecuting someone as rich as he is in the US would not be
done unless they are 100% sure they get a conviction without
allowing appeals.

A person as rich as he is would be able to spend the Gov
Entity into "bankruptcy".

> It is not so much about moderation as about his pricipal
> refusal to disclose the encryption keys to third parties
> (including the Russian government).

<snip>

--
csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:25:12 -0000 (UTC), John McCue <jmccue@reddwf.jmcunx.com> wrote:
>In comp.misc Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>> D. Ray:
>>> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
>>> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
>>> platform for not having enough "moderation."
>
>From what I have read, I believe this seems to be the case.

yet another case in point that unmoderated newsgroups are the only
public forum for plain text free speech to reach a global audience;
social media is moderated no matter how much they struggle in vain
to control the narrative . . . their mainstream media echo chamber
run the usual damage control, conspicuously avoiding discussion of
whole message encryption (http://danner-net.de/omom/tutorwme.htm)
plus their most glaring omission of all, usenet newsgroups... e.g.

(using Tor Browser 13.5.2)
https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram-is-not-really-an-encrypted-messaging-app/
>Is Telegram really an encrypted messaging app?
>Matthew Green in messaging August 25, 2024 2,290 Words
>This blog is reserved for more serious things, and ordinarily I wouldn't
>spend time on questions like the above. But much as I'd like to spend my
>time writing about exciting topics, sometimes the world requires a bit of
>what Brad Delong calls "Intellectual Garbage Pickup," namely: correcting
>wrong, or mostly-wrong ideas that spread unchecked across the Internet.
>This post is inspired by the recent and concerning news that Telegram's
>CEO Pavel Durov has been arrested by French authorities for its failure to
>sufficiently moderate content. While I don't know the details, the use of
>criminal charges to coerce social media companies is a pretty worrying
>escalation, and I hope there's more to the story.
>But this arrest is not what I want to talk about today.
>What I do want to talk about is one specific detail of the reporting.
>Specifically: the fact that nearly every news report about the arrest
>refers to Telegram as an "encrypted messaging app." Here are just a few
>examples:
>This phrasing drives me nuts because in a very limited technical sense
>it's not wrong. Yet in every sense that matters, it fundamentally
>misrepresents what Telegram is and how it works in practice. And this
>misrepresentation is bad for both journalists and particularly for
>Telegram's users, many of whom could be badly hurt as a result.
>Now to the details.
>Does Telegram have encryption or doesn't it?
>Many systems use encryption in some way or another. However, when we talk
>about encryption in the context of modern private messaging services, the
>word typically has a very specific meaning: it refers to the use of
>default end-to-end encryption to protect users' message content. When used
>in an industry-standard way, this feature ensures that every message will
>be encrypted using encryption keys that are only known to the
>communicating parties, and not to the service provider.
>From your perspective as a user, an "encrypted messenger" ensures that
>each time you start a conversation, your messages will only be readable by
>the folks you intend to speak with. If the operator of a messaging service
>tries to view the content of your messages, all they'll see is useless
>encrypted junk. That same guarantee holds for anyone who might hack into
>the provider's servers, and also, for better or for worse, to law
>enforcement agencies that serve providers with a subpoena.
>Telegram clearly fails to meet this stronger definition for a simple
>reason: it does not end-to-end encrypt conversations by default. If you
>want to use end-to-end encryption in Telegram, you must manually activate
>an optional end-to-end encryption feature called "Secret Chats" for every
>single private conversation you want to have. The feature is explicitly
>not turned on for the vast majority of conversations, and is only
>available for one-on-one conversations, and never for group chats with
>more than two people in them.
>As a kind of a weird bonus, activating end-to-end encryption in Telegram
>is oddly difficult for non-expert users to actually do.
>For one thing, the button that activates Telegram's encryption feature is
>not visible from the main conversation pane, or from the home screen. To
>find it in the iOS app, I had to click at least four times -- once to
>access the user's profile, once to make a hidden menu pop up showing me
>the options, and a final time to "confirm" that I wanted to use
>encryption. And even after this I was not able to actually have an
>encrypted conversation, since Secret Chats only works if your conversation
>partner happens to be online when you do this.
>Starting a "secret chat" with my friend Michael on the latest Telegram iOS
>app. From an ordinary chat screen this option isn't directly visible.
>Getting it activated requires four clicks: (1) to get to Michael's profile
>(left image), (2) on the "..." button to display a hidden set of options
>(center image), (3) on "Start Secret Chat", and (4) on the "Are you sure..."
>confirmation dialog. After that I'm still unable to send Michael any
>messages, because Telegram's Secret Chats can only be turned on if the
>other user is also online.
>Overall this is quite different from the experience of starting a new
>encrypted chat in an industry-standard modern messaging application, which
>simply requires you to open a new chat window.
>While it might seem like I'm being picky, the difference in adoption
>between default end-to-end encryption and this experience is likely very
>significant. The practical impact is that the vast majority of one-on-one
>Telegram conversations -- and literally every single group chat -- are
>probably visible on Telegram's servers, which can see and record the
>content of all messages sent between users. That may or may not be a
>problem for every Telegram user, but it's certainly not something we'd
>advertise as particularly well encrypted.
>(If you're interested in the details, as well as a little bit of further
>criticism of Telegram's actual encryption protocols, I'll get into what we
>know about that further below.)
>But wait, does default encryption really matter?
>Maybe yes, maybe no! There are two different ways to think about this.
>One is that Telegram's lack of default encryption is just fine for many
>people. The reality is that many users don't choose Telegram for encrypted
>private messaging at all. For plenty of people, Telegram is used more like
>a social media network than a private messenger.
>Getting more specific, Telegram has two popular features that makes it
>ideal for this use-case. One of those is the ability to create and
>subscribe to "channels", each of which works like a broadcast network
>where one person (or a small number of people) can push content out to
>millions of readers. When you're broadcasting messages to thousands of
>strangers in public, maintaining the secrecy of your chat content isn't as
>important.
>Telegram also supports large public group chats that can include thousands
>of users. These groups can be made open for the general public to join, or
>they can set up as invite-only. While I've never personally wanted to
>share a group chat with thousands of people, I'm told that many people
>enjoy this feature. In the large and public instantiation, it also doesn't
>really matter that Telegram group chats are unencrypted -- after all, who
>cares about confidentiality if you're talking in the public square?
>But Telegram is not limited to just those features, and many users who
>join for them will also do other things.
>Imagine you're in a "public square" having a large group conversation. In
>that setting there may be no expectation of strong privacy, and so end-to-
>end encryption doesn't really matter to you. But let's say that you and
>five friends step out of the square to have a side conversation. Does that
>conversation deserve strong privacy? It doesn't really matter what you
>want, because Telegram won't provide it, at least not with encryption that
>protects you from sharing your content with Telegram servers.
>Similarly, imagine you use Telegram for its social media-like features,
>meaning that you mainly consume content rather than producing it. But one
>day your friend, who also uses Telegram for similar reasons, notices
>you're on the platform and decides she wants to send you a private
>message. Are you concerned about privacy now? And are you each going to
>manually turn on the "Secret Chat" feature -- even though it requires four
>explicit clicks through hidden menus, and even though it will prevent you
>from communicating immediately if one of you is offline?
>My strong suspicion is that many people who join Telegram for its social
>media features also end up using it to communicate privately. And I think
>Telegram knows this, and tends to advertise itself as a "secure messenger"
>and talk about the platform's encryption features precisely because they
>know it makes people feel more comfortable. But in practice, I also
>suspect that very few of those users are actually using Telegram's
>encryption. Many of those users may not even realize they have to turn
>encryption on manually, and think they're already using it.
>Which brings me to my next point.
>Telegram knows its encryption is difficult to turn on, and they continue
>to promote their product as a secure messenger
>Telegram's encryption has been subject to heavy criticism since at least
>2016 (and possibly earlier) for many of the reasons I outlined in this
>post. In fact, many of these criticisms were made by experts including
>myself, in years-old conversations with Pavel Durov on Twitter.1
>Although the interaction with Durov could sometimes be harsh, I still
>mostly assumed good faith from Telegram back in those days. I believed
>that Telegram was busy growing their network and that, in time, they would
>improve the quality and usability of the platform's end-to-end encryption:
>for example, by activating it as a default, providing support for group
>chats, and making it possible to start encrypted chats with offline users.
>I assumed that while Telegram might be a follower rather than a leader, it
>would eventually reach feature parity with the encryption protocols
>offered by Signal and WhatsApp. Of course, a second possibility was that
>Telegram would abandon encryption entirely -- and just focus on being a
>social media platform.
>What's actually happened is a lot more confusing to me.
>Instead of improving the usability of Telegram's end-to-end encryption,
>the owners of Telegram have more or less kept their encryption UX
>unchanged since 2016. While there have been a few upgrades to the
>underlying encryption algorithms used by the platform, the user-facing
>experience of Secret Chats in 2024 is almost identical to the one you'd
>have seen eight years ago. This, despite the fact that the number of
>Telegram users has grown by 7-9x during the same time period.
>At the same time, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has continued to aggressively
>market Telegram as a "secure messenger." Most recently he issued a
>scathing criticism of Signal and WhatsApp on his personal Telegram
>channel, implying that those systems were backdoored by the US government,
>and only Telegram's independent encryption protocols were really
>trustworthy.
>While this might be a reasonable nerd-argument if it was taking place
>between two platforms that both supported default end-to-end encryption,
>Telegram really has no legs to stand on in this particular discussion.
>Indeed, it no longer feels amusing to see the Telegram organization urge
>people away from default-encrypted messengers, while refusing to implement
>essential features that would widely encrypt their own users' messages. In
>fact, it's starting to feel a bit malicious.
>What about the boring encryption details?
>This is a cryptography blog and so I'd be remiss if I didn't spend at
>least a little bit of time on the boring encryption protocols. I'd also be
>missing a good opportunity to let my mouth gape open in amazement, which
>is pretty much what happens every time I look at the internals of
>Telegram's encryption.
>I'm going to handle this in one paragraph to reduce the pain, and you can
>feel free to skip past it if you're not interested.
>According to what I think is the latest encryption spec, Telegram's Secret
>Chats feature is based on a custom protocol called MTProto 2.0. This
>system uses 2048-bit* finite-field Diffie-Hellman key agreement, with
>group parameters (I think) chosen by the server.* (Since the Diffie-
>Hellman protocol is only executed interactively, this is why Secret Chats
>cannot be set up when one user is offline.*) MITM protection is handled by
>the end-users, who must compare key fingerprints. There are some weird
>random nonces provided by the server, which I don't fully understands the
>purpose of* -- and that in the past used to actively make the key exchange
>totally insecure against a malicious server (but this has long since been
>fixed.*) The resulting keys are then used to power the most amazing, non-
>standard authenticated encryption mode ever invented, something called
>"Infinite Garble Extension" (IGE) based on AES and with SHA2 handling
>authentication.*
>NB: Every place I put a "*" in the paragraph above is a point where expert
>cryptographers would, in the context of something like a professional
>security audit, raise their hands and ask a lot of questions. I'm not
>going to go further than this. Suffice it to say that Telegram's
>encryption is unusual.
>If you ask me to guess whether the protocol and implementation of Telegram
>Secret Chats is secure, I would say quite possibly. To be honest though,
>it doesn't matter how secure something is if people aren't actually using
>it.
>Is there anything else I should know?
>Yes, unfortunately. Even though end-to-end encryption is one of the best
>tools we've developed to prevent data compromise, it is hardly the end of
>the story. One of the biggest privacy problems in messaging is the
>availability of loads of meta-data -- essentially data about who uses the
>service, who they talk to, and when they do that talking.
>This data is not typically protected by end-to-end encryption. Even in
>applications that are broadcast-only, such as Telegram's channels, there
>is plenty of useful metadata available about who is listening to a
>broadcast. That information alone is valuable to people, as evidenced by
>the enormous amounts of money that traditional broadcasters spend to
>collect it. Right now all of that information likely exists on Telegram's
>servers, where it is available to anyone who wants to collect it.
>I am not specifically calling out Telegram for this, since the same
>problem exists with virtually every other social media network and private
>messenger. But it should be mentioned, just to avoid leaving you with the
>conclusion that encryption is all we need.
>Main photo "privacy screen" by Susan Jane Golding, used under CC license.
>Notes:
> 1. I will never find all of these conversations again, thanks to Twitter
> search being so broken. If anyone can turn them up I'd appreciate it.
>Matthew Green
>I'm a cryptographer and professor at Johns Hopkins University. I've
>designed and analyzed cryptographic systems used in wireless networks,
>payment systems and digital content protection platforms. In my research
>I look at the various ways cryptography can be used to promote user
>privacy.
[end quoted plain text]

On 26.08.2024 um 07:30 Uhr NoBody wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 24 01:14:57 UTC, D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>
> >? Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on Saturday
> >allegedly as part of an investigation into his platform for not
> >having enough "moderation."
> >
> ><https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64613>
> >
> ><https://archive.ph/d133e>
>
> This is the beginning of a frightening shift towards tyranny.

This is exactly what many politicians want.

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1724650259muell@cartoonies.org

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:25:12 -0000 (UTC), John McCue
<jmccue@reddwf.jmcunx.com> wrote:

>Followups trimmed to: comp.misc
>
>In comp.misc Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>> D. Ray:
>>
>>> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
>>> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
>>> platform for not having enough "moderation."
>
>From what I have read, I believe this seems to be the
>case.
>
>I do not know anything about French Law, but arresting *and*
>prosecuting someone as rich as he is in the US would not be
>done unless they are 100% sure they get a conviction without
>allowing appeals.
>
>A person as rich as he is would be able to spend the Gov
>Entity into "bankruptcy".
>
>
>> It is not so much about moderation as about his pricipal
>> refusal to disclose the encryption keys to third parties
>> (including the Russian government).
>
><snip>

You're making a ton of presumptions and assuming facts not in
evidence.

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

>D. Ray:

>> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
>> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
>> platform for not having enough "moderation."

>It is not so much about moderation as about his pricipal
>refusal to disclose the encryption keys to third parties
>(including the Russian government).

>Considering the extensive use of Telegram by the Russian
>military as a means of secure communication on the Ukrainian
>front (for lack of a better one), the sad joke here is the
>they arrested our Chief of Communications. Rumours have it
>that Durov has anticipated his arrest and activated a
>security protocol ensuring the French not get access.

IIRC Telegram's founder originally fled Russia and went to Israel.
The Russian authorities had difficulties tracking down people
who were writing things that were against the official line
of the regime on Telegram. So the Russian authorities got annoyed
by Telegram and Telegram's founder had to flee Russia.
The Russian authorities even slowed down the speed of
internet connections to Telegram's servers inside Russia
on February 2022 and in the 6 following months. I wonder
if the internet speed for connections to Telegram's servers is
still artificially being slowed down.
I'm trying to figure out whether
I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Telegram
is an official means of communication for the Russian military
on the Ukrainian front? Or are you saying that Telegram is used
on the front as a normal means of communication? Used mainly
by soldiers. To keep in touch with their circle of friends. Any
people anywhere in the world would use Telegram to keep in touch with
their circle of friends. Not just Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian
front. And are you saying that Telegram is not a means of
communication used by Russian military officials on the
Ukrainian front? To transmit orders for example.

(snip)

On 27 Aug 2024 11:48:15 GMT, Julius Bernotas <gaussianblue@tilde.pink> wrote:
>Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:
>>D. Ray:
>>> Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on
>>> Saturday allegedly as part of an investigation into his
>>> platform for not having enough "moderation."
>
>>It is not so much about moderation as about his pricipal
>>refusal to disclose the encryption keys to third parties
>>(including the Russian government).
>>Considering the extensive use of Telegram by the Russian
>>military as a means of secure communication on the Ukrainian
>>front (for lack of a better one), the sad joke here is the
>>they arrested our Chief of Communications. Rumours have it
>>that Durov has anticipated his arrest and activated a
>>security protocol ensuring the French not get access.
>
>IIRC Telegram's founder originally fled Russia and went to Israel.
>The Russian authorities had difficulties tracking down people
>who were writing things that were against the official line
>of the regime on Telegram. So the Russian authorities got annoyed
>by Telegram and Telegram's founder had to flee Russia.
>The Russian authorities even slowed down the speed of
>internet connections to Telegram's servers inside Russia
>on February 2022 and in the 6 following months. I wonder
>if the internet speed for connections to Telegram's servers is
>still artificially being slowed down.
>I'm trying to figure out whether
>I understand you correctly. Are you saying that Telegram
>is an official means of communication for the Russian military
>on the Ukrainian front? Or are you saying that Telegram is used
>on the front as a normal means of communication? Used mainly
>by soldiers. To keep in touch with their circle of friends. Any
>people anywhere in the world would use Telegram to keep in touch with
>their circle of friends. Not just Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian
>front. And are you saying that Telegram is not a means of
>communication used by Russian military officials on the
>Ukrainian front? To transmit orders for example.

=-6667 Header {^Path: .*news.dfncis.de}
# mnemonic "third part", mutable, siva

why would anyone, military or otherwise, use open channels, public
social media for example, to communicate top-secret/sensitive data,
entrusting corporate criminals with encryption? ...pigs have wings

as a casual user of remailers for posting to newsgroups, "privacy"
is a simple matter, because none of the plain text content posted
to these unmoderated newsgroup forums requires decryption to read;
but some users may have more serious concerns about prevention of
"unauthorized" access to unencrypted content regardless of format
or function, in such cases "whole message encryption" is strongly
recommended . . . see https://www.danner-net.de/omom/tutorwme.htm

Julius Bernotas:

> IIRC Telegram's founder originally fled Russia and went to
> Israel.

Fled?! He simply emigrated, and remains a Russian citizen,
and it is in that quality that the Russisan government
interceded for him in France.

> The Russian authorities had difficulties tracking down
> people who were writing things that were against the
> official line of the regime on Telegram.

Yes, including criminals, spies, and terrorists.

> The Russian authorities even slowed down the speed of
> internet connections to Telegram's servers inside Russia
> on February 2022 and in the 6 following months. I wonder
> if the internet speed for connections to Telegram's
> servers is still artificially being slowed down.

I don't experiece any slowdowns now, but YouTube is
practically blocked here, alghough it can be accessed via
VPNs or special software like GoodbyeDPI .

> I'm trying to figure out whether I understand you
> correctly. Are you saying that Telegram is an official
> means of communication for the Russian military on the
> Ukrainian front?

No, it is not "official." The joke was a sad sarcasm: too
near the truth.

> [...]
> And are you saying that Telegram is not a means of
> communication used by Russian military officials on the
> Ukrainian front?

It is.

> To transmit orders for example.

Maybe even for that, but certainly for horisontal
coordination where other means are unavailable.

Communications in the Russian army is a /bloody/ mess (as
many other things). It is higly dependent on the help of
volunteers from all over Russia, who adopt various civil DMR
radios, order, upgrade, develop custom firmware, and
reprogram all the necessary hardware, from retranslators and
power generators to individual portable radios and
batteries, and adopt them for tanks, APCs, and develop
integration. Even the basic wired communication is not
always avaiable, so that volunteers scavenge old military
field telephones and buy cable by the kilometer, because it
is an expendable.

The majority of high-quality (season- and terrain-tailored)
camouflage nets are also supplied by volunteers, via the
"People's net" project with workshops across the coutry
exising on small personal donations. And all the while the
Russian propaganda has been bragging that the Russian army
is well suppplied, and attacking the volunteers for
"discrediding the military."

Did you know, for exapmple, that in the storm of Lisichansk,
communication was provided via a bunch of portable radios
(one per channel) and one retranslator-capable radio hanging
from a 12-meter Chinese kite, something like this:

https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_brief/7713650/pub_63760c421e944f5c890f23ef_63760c421e944f5c890f23f0/scale_2400

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

D:

> why would anyone, military or otherwise, use open
> channels, public social media for example, to communicate
> top-secret/sensitive data,

Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.

> entrusting corporate criminals with encryption? ...pigs
> have wings

So far as I know, Durov has not (yet) revealed the Telegram
encyrption keys to the enemies of Russia, so why would he be
a crimial?

> as a casual user of remailers for posting to newsgroups,
> "privacy" is a simple matter, because none of the plain
> text content posted to these unmoderated newsgroup forums
> requires decryption to read;

Where is the privacy, then? Usenet is for public discussions.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 16:14:51 +0300, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
snip
>Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
>Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes-and ships-and sealing-wax-
Of cabbages-and kings-
And why the sea is boiling hot-
And whether pigs have wings."

Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was born to Charles & Frances Jane Lutwidge-
Dodgson at the All Saints parsonage(2W36:45,53N19:11), Morphany Lane
Daresbury, Cheshire England on Friday 27 January 1832 at 3:45 AM LMT
(AA/BR, time B/bio), baptised at All Saints Church(2W37:52,53N20:26).

D to Anton Shepelev:

> > Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
> > Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.
>
> "The time has come," the Walrus said,
> "To talk of many things:
> Of shoes-and ships-and sealing-wax --
> Of cabbages-and kings --
> And why the sea is boiling hot --
> And whether pigs have wings."

I am not English enought to know the reference and its
meaning.

> Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was born to Charles & Frances Jane Lutwidge-
> Dodgson at the All Saints parsonage(2W36:45,53N19:11), Morphany Lane
> Daresbury, Cheshire England on Friday 27 January 1832 at 3:45 AM LMT
> (AA/BR, time B/bio), baptised at All Saints Church(2W37:52,53N20:26).

By what magick did you make it a 70-character-wide brick
text with hanging puntuation?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:39:15 +0300, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>D to Anton Shepelev:
>> > Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
>> > Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.
>>
>> "The time has come," the Walrus said,
>> "To talk of many things:
>> Of shoes-and ships-and sealing-wax --
>> Of cabbages-and kings --
>> And why the sea is boiling hot --
>> And whether pigs have wings."
>
>I am not English enought to know the reference and its
>meaning.

it this context, it means that every usenet news server that has ever
allowed posting (yes, including mail-to-news, remailers, website nntp
backends etc.) shares complicity in not only enabling, but tolerating
the usenet psyops troll farm which has systematically infiltrated and
occupied every busy newsgroup since circa 1993 when public access and
popularity of usenet newsgroups skyrocketed into the stratosphere for
unmoderated, uncensored, unnarrated, uncontrolled, candid discussions

>> Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was born to Charles & Frances Jane Lutwidge-
>> Dodgson at the All Saints parsonage(2W36:45,53N19:11), Morphany Lane
>> Daresbury, Cheshire England on Friday 27 January 1832 at 3:45 AM LMT
>> (AA/BR, time B/bio), baptised at All Saints Church(2W37:52,53N20:26).
>
>By what magick did you make it a 70-character-wide brick
>text with hanging puntuation?

force of habit, text-justification looks better without adding spaces

On 8/27/24 11:13 AM, D wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:39:15 +0300, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>>D to Anton Shepelev:
>>> > Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
>>> > Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.
>>>
>>> "The time has come," the Walrus said,
>>> "To talk of many things:
>>> Of shoes-and ships-and sealing-wax --
>>> Of cabbages-and kings --
>>> And why the sea is boiling hot --
>>> And whether pigs have wings."
>>
>>I am not English enought to know the reference and its
>>meaning.
>
> it this context, it means that every usenet news server that has ever
> allowed posting (yes, including mail-to-news, remailers, website nntp
> backends etc.) shares complicity in not only enabling, but tolerating
> the usenet psyops troll farm which has systematically infiltrated and
> occupied every busy newsgroup since circa 1993 when public access and
> popularity of usenet newsgroups skyrocketed into the stratosphere for
> unmoderated, uncensored, unnarrated, uncontrolled, candid discussions
>
>>> Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was born to Charles & Frances Jane Lutwidge-
>>> Dodgson at the All Saints parsonage(2W36:45,53N19:11), Morphany Lane
>>> Daresbury, Cheshire England on Friday 27 January 1832 at 3:45 AM LMT
>>> (AA/BR, time B/bio), baptised at All Saints Church(2W37:52,53N20:26).
>>
>>By what magick did you make it a 70-character-wide brick
>>text with hanging puntuation?
>
> force of habit, text-justification looks better without adding spaces

You could do it by hand on an IBM Executive typewriter -- it had
proportional type and fractional spaces. You could do typeset-quality
stuff with a little effort.

But I digress...

--
Cheers, Bev
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:45:21 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 8/27/24 11:13 AM, D wrote:
snip
>> force of habit, text-justification looks better without adding spaces
>
>You could do it by hand on an IBM Executive typewriter -- it had
>proportional type and fractional spaces. You could do typeset-quality
>stuff with a little effort.

form follows function... long time since mister sandman
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ibm+electric+typewriter+1950s
>...
>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ibm+electric+typewriter+model+d+1967

guessing it's the 1967 "model d" that the baby boomers recall, but
this 1954 "model b" was still around . . . that much i do remember

>https://archive.org/details/ibm-model-b-electric-typewriter-user-manual-1954
>IBM Model B Electric Typewriter User Manual 1954
>by International Business Machines Typewriter Division
>Publication date 1954
>Topics user manual, electric typewriter,
> IBM Model B, gender stereotypes
>Collection manuals_showcase; manuals;
> additional_collections
>Language English
>Item Size 142.9M
>...
>PDF
>https://archive.org/download/ibm-model-b-electric-typewriter-user-manual-1954/IBM%20Model%20B%20Electric%20Typewriter%20User%20Manual%201954.pdf
(128.9 MB)
>Note the posture of Stella Pajunas,
>the present World's Typing
>Champion. She types comfortably
>and efficiently all day on the IBM,
>without tiring, by following these
>four rules:
> upper arms sloped slightly
> forward
> back erect, supported by
> backrest
> forearms on same slope
> as keyboard
> feet flat on floor
[end quote]

On 8/28/24 6:55 AM, D wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:45:21 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 8/27/24 11:13 AM, D wrote:
> snip
>>> force of habit, text-justification looks better without adding spaces
>>
>>You could do it by hand on an IBM Executive typewriter -- it had
>>proportional type and fractional spaces. You could do typeset-quality
>>stuff with a little effort.
>
> form follows function... long time since mister sandman
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ibm+electric+typewriter+1950s
>>...
>>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ibm+electric+typewriter+model+d+1967
>
> guessing it's the 1967 "model d" that the baby boomers recall, but
> this 1954 "model b" was still around . . . that much i do remember

No, probably the 1976 model. Times Roman. It was there when I arrived
in 1978. It had two spacebars. Also a fractional backspace so you
could kern. It was a beautiful thing. It was on a contract for many
years. When it finally needed a repair the bastards said they didn't
have anyone who knew how to fix it and refunded that year's fee.

--
Cheers, Bev
Politicians are stupid like cats are stupid.

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
> Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.

I find it hard to believe. Basic messenger is not that hard to create, and
adding encryption functionality based on, for example, PGP, is also not
that hard.

Military wouldn’t need most of functionality of modern messengers, such as
animated stickers or “stories”.

D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
> Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
>> Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.
>
> I find it hard to believe. Basic messenger is not that hard to create, and
> adding encryption functionality based on, for example, PGP, is also not
> that hard.

It's probably like in the US military, at least circa 2006:

"A 2006 thesis from the Naval Postgraduate School states that
internet relay chat (IRC) is one of the most widely used chat
protocols for military command and control (C2). Software such as
mIRC, a Windows-based chat client, or integrated systems in C2
equipment are used primarily in tactical conditions though efforts
are underway to upgrade systems to newer protocols." ...
https://publicintelligence.net/tactical-chat/

All the US' military-specific encrypted message standards, network
infrastructure, and untold millions spent, and soldiers on the
ground just used IRC.

This US defence contractor still lists "cross protocol
communication" with IRC as one of the key features of their secure
chat system:
https://tacticalchat.com/

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

D. Ray (Unicode punctuation removoed):

> > Telegram's point-to-point chats are not so open, and the
> > Russian military have no secure messenger of their own.
>
> I find it hard to believe. Basic messenger is not that
> hard to create, and adding encryption functionality based
> on, for example, PGP, is also not that hard.

It is not a case of tried-and-failed. It is a case of
corruption and buereaucracy run amok, to the the degree of
state treason. The Russian army lacks such basic things as
cable and field telephones, camouflage networks, and even
boxes for MG belts. Volunteers develop, produce, and supply
all those, in direly insufficient quantities however...

> Military wouldn't need most of functionality of modern
> messengers, such as animated stickers or stories.

Normal civil users wouldn't need them either, but who cares?
They used to say about the classic free market that demand
determined supply. Now supply determines demand, because
the suppliers manipulate the consumers.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

As of today, September 6th, all of Hamas' official Telegram channels have
been banned in the U.S. by Telegram for "violating local laws."

This includes:

-The official announcement channel of Hamas

-Al-Qassam Brigade's official channel (source of resistance videos and
military updates)

-Abu Obeida's official channel (Spokesperson of Al-Qassam Brigades)

<https://t.me/palestinianlounge/3631>