Posted by jpluimers on 2021/01/22
Ik had al eerder over woonveilig geschreven (Ik ben wat verward over de @WoonVeilig site. https://t.co/ui8agTkgM9 heeft het bijvoorbeeld over GATE-03 en GATE-02, maar…), nu iets meer over de installatie handleidingen van GATE-03:
De aanmeldprocedure brengt je naar [Archive.is] alarmsysteem.woonveilig.nl/nl_NL_woonveilig/registratie, die voor registratie nog verwijst naar:
Een paar tips tijdens de registratie en gebruik:
–jeroen
Posted in LifeHacker, Power User, Security | Leave a Comment »
Posted by jpluimers on 2021/01/22
Below are a few comments from [WayBack] Anyone tried #Telegram to communicate securely? Some nice features there… Looks way more secure than WeChat and all that. Thoughts? https://telegram…. – Jason Mayes – Google+.
The consensus seems to be
- Signal is the way to go for secure chat. It is open source too.
- When chatting with groups of people, there is technical security, but not social security.
- Telegram is easier to use than some other chat platforms, and has a large user base.
The comments:
Telegram is pretty nice, but its security leaves much to be desired. If it’s security and true privacy you want, Signal is the way to go.
Hi
+Ryan Ostendorf signal is indeed a way to go but didn’t have big users number compared to Telegram.
I use telegram, discord, slack & hangouts for variousn groups i talk with. Of those, telegeam is my preferred for ease of use etc. One thing i would like to see is a “index” of groups to maybe easier prioritise what i want to read (a-la how discord wokrs with its different servers) but im so used to the flat style of telegram/hangouts that i dont have a huge issue with its current design
Re security, im not an expert, but it seems ok, with multuple options available. Havent heard of anything being intercepted/hacked, but who really know what our alien overlords – err governments – and other interested parties are up to behind the scenes.
I use telegram more than whatsapp. I found many technical group discussion (at least for Indonesian) because telegram supports a huge amount of members per group.
also, the telegram bot and channel give a unique feature for a developer to build an application on top of it.
-
Thanks everyone for feedback!
I am using Telegram for 5 years now. Far faster and better than WhatsApp in many ways.
It’s security level depends on who you ask. If you take their word at face value it’s great. If you believe the rumors it’s totally bent by U.S. surveillance agencies.
Feature wise it’s decent otherwise.
A few of us are on the hunt for a good, secure, multi platform messaging platform to replace Hangouts when they kill that. We’ve narrowed it down to a few that we’re testing.
Signal was good until they killed their linux and browser clients.
Retroshare is on the to test list along with…
Viber.
Tox.
I have been a telegram user since october 2017.
And I wonder, how do telegram make profit.
Who is paying for the server to be alive ?
-
Side note. You can just assume that any product based out of the U.S. or any Five Eyes country is not secure. I wouldn’t trust anything EU based either. What’s that leave you?
-
For dependable privacy, I use two cans and a string.
-
+x Meta x I can use a laser pointed at your string to measure the sound being transferred over it though
-
-
I use the postal service. Nobody sends anything via that these days other than birthday cards from Nanna’s, so my most private missives go conpletely un-noticed by the authorities
-
I downloaded Telegram yesterday, in fact. Haven’t had a chance to try it out yet as I don’t know anyone using it. I had thought it would be more like BBM, with public groups in a social media-lite feature, but it’s not.
-
+Jason ON telegram got more than that. The setting let you do much more.
-
I remember getting very happy, when I got telegram from my father when I was a kid in about 80s. He had duty in other island faraway from home.
+Jason Mayes Check out Keybase.io they strike a sweet balance between Wire-like security (encrypted group chats), and Telegram-like usability/looks. And I thought it’s FOSS!
Keybase
keybase.io
Telegram has a very tempting feature set for a “messaging” service.
I have recently started using it. Top reasons I like it so far are the ability to add a username, which means I can be available without giving people my phone number.
My URL 👉 t.me/qwallis
Also the ability to have branded public broadcast channels is different. I’ve set one up for London Meet-ups for +Happening London the URL for that is here 👉 t.me/HappeningLondon
Any public post cam be embedded, so I’m surfacing the next meet-up on the +Happening London web site too 👉 happeninglondon.co.uk
Those feature (and others) make Telegram interesting.
-
+Robert Wallis I agree. With the caveat that this is as long as you aren’t expecting 100% guaranteed secure communications.
Of course the question of whether such a thing even exists is valid. But in Telegram’s case, at least expect your local Five Eyes government surveillance state to be “reading” them.
I’m giving Matrix/Synapse and riot.im a whirl.
Mostly because I can selfhost it, and it’s got some good things going for it, like encrypted convos.
They still got a mile or two on their clients and that’s where I’m holding off on inviting everyone and their dogs until there’s something that can be used by more people without becoming a troubleshooting nightmare/”this isn’t as easy as whatsapp. Can’t we use messenger instead?” kind of deal.
Riot – Riot – open team collaboration
about.riot.im
-
+Christopher Gaul yeah, but where aren’t they?
As far as I understand Telegram has been validated for “secret chats” between two users, where security models are more easily implemented, but for groups of up to 200,00 that’s never going to be “secret” just hidden, and public broadcast channels are … well public.
–jeroen
Posted in Chat, Keybase, LifeHacker, Power User, Security, SocialMedia, Telegram | Leave a Comment »
Posted by jpluimers on 2021/01/22
I knew Google Search had a site: operator and I thought you could or them together using something like this:
reboot site:superuser.com or site:android.stackexchange.com
To my surprise that returned zero results as in empty result list.
Indeed: the OR needs to be in uppercase to work:
you can use the OR operator to add another site to your query:
reboot site:superuser.com OR site:android.stackexchange.com
–jeroen
Source: How to limit Google search result to a set of websites? – Web Applications Stack Exchange [WayBack]
Posted in Google, GoogleSearch, Power User | Leave a Comment »
The Wiert Corner - irregular stream of stuff 