Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers

185 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

109

Telegram Sparks Outrage Over FAQ Changes Even as Key Language on Private Chats Remains. (decrypt.co)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Telegram is no longer safe for piracy.

I bet they will start kicking out piracy channels in few weeks.

I am going to delete my account now as it will become useless soon anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] onlinepersona 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I imagine it comes with the problem most P2P chats come with: both sender and receiver have to be online at the same time, otherwise the message cannot be delivered.

Although, if people were serious about anonymity, they'd be using such a service (or similar).

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. I mean theoretically you could use all the other nodes, similar to Tor or I2P to relay and temporarily store chat messages and room states. I mean that is basically those networks except maybe you route a package multiple ways and mark them for late delivery. And you measure the speed and latency of nodes so better connected nodes get more workload and act as temporary floating servers. All via DHT.

Then theoretically there should be no performance difference between server based and P2P chats. But it's even more complicated. I don't even need a chat like that, really not at all. But I think it should exist already.

[–] onlinepersona 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's maybe difficult to maintain privacy. The destination needs to be known and has to somehow notify other nodes that it's waiting for messages. I don't know if that can lead to traffic profiling to along the path (if enough nodes are owned) to deanonimise.

The sender can probably sealed like signal does though.

Anti Commercial-AI license