How does that prove that Telegram as a whole is not secure? The only thing that would demonstrate is that your normal, not-E2E encrypted, messages aren't E2E encrypted, which yeah, of course they aren't.

I think you might confuse what the mud puddle test aims to demonstrate. It's to be able to confirm E2E encryption, which if you do that test with Telegram + Secret Chats (which is the E2E encryption feature in Telegram), you'll see you cannot recover those messages.

> It depends on what you mean by "as a whole". I mean that Telegram by default can read all your private chats

Yes, this is the expectation. You use someone else's platform that doesn't have E2E, you assume they can read your messages and will help law enforcement to do the same. No surprise there.

Doesn't mean their E2E feature isn't secure, or that the platform as a whole isn't secure. Facebook surely shares their Facebook + Whatsapp data with US law enforcement, we wouldn't call Facebook/Whatsapp insecure just because of that.

Whatsapp does, as far as anyone can tell, have e2e encryption. Now in principle it may be vulnerable to a government forcing Facebook to compromise it, but it's there.

> we wouldn't call Facebook/Whatsapp insecure just because of that.

I and many others certainly would.

>On Linux desktop (and phones) it doesn't even allow to enable e2ee at all.

There's "New secret chat" option on my Android client. Or what do you mean by "phones" here?

I mean on GNU/Linux desktop and GNU/Linux phones.

> The only thing that would demonstrate is that your normal, not-E2E encrypted, messages aren't E2E encrypted, which yeah, of course they aren't.

I mean, if nothing else, that's a bad default. This makes it worse than, say, WhatsApp or the apple messaging thing, nevermind the likes of Matrix or Signal.