Bugs and Suggestions

Suggestion "Separate passcode lock for specific chats or
Archive" has no relation to the idea of "Double bottom". These are
completely different ideas.

The Suggestion should be based on the separation of Telegram accounts or hide "the double bottom" with server-side support, because the bystander may have knowledge of the account holder's phone number.

Akram Mar 6, 2021

Telegram support is clearly lying when they say they want to reflect our idea more clearly.

You have completely changed our message and misled people.
"Double bottom" allows you to use your biometric data, and in this case, your "theory" is complete nonsense.

I ask you to return the previous version of the letter and not to embarrass yourself in front of people.

PJ Mar 9, 2021

Admin Dog

Thank you for the suggestion. Please make sure to check the platform for existing suggestions before submitting new cards. Our standard procedure is for duplicates to be deleted – in this case we decided to delete the previous suggestion card instead (https://bugs.telegram.org/c/919) to keep the upvotes received by this one. The card was edited to reflect the broader scope of the issue at hand.

On "POTENTIAL ISSUE": you make a valid point in regard to biometric unlock, however, this issue can be EASILY prevented by making biometric data unlock only the "first bottom".

So, biometric unlock never has to be disabled: to access full chat list one MUST enter a secret PIN code. If one uses fingerprint-unlock, only first bottom will open and "hidden" chats will remain hidden.

Yura Mocherniuk Mar 28, 2021

In my opinion, it would be safer, simpler and faster to delete Telegram from your device in critical situations. Providing that you have 2FA enabled it won't be easy to get access to your cloud chats' data. Of course all secret chats will be lost in such case, but that's the whole point of secret chats: they are exceptionally secure and evanescent. I reckon the second point makes them even more secure than Signal chats.

А. Книгар Mar 28, 2021

Yura Mocherniuk

An innocent bystander may have knowledge of the account holder's phone number and can force person to enter to the Telegram. Removing the application does not solve the problem at all, and only a *double bottom* will help solve it.

Snep Apr 8, 2021

А. Книгар

How could an innocent bystander force anyone to sign into their Telegram account in any occasion? Also, if there is no app on the phone, how could, say, police know that that person used Telegram for their communications?

А. Книгар Apr 8, 2021

Snep

> How could an innocent bystander force anyone to sign into their Telegram account in any occasion?

By threats of physical harm, which has already been done by bandits and dishonest police officers

> Also, if there is no app on the phone, how could, say, police know that that person used Telegram for their communications?

Via Telegram's access restore procedure or with the logs of a mobile operator.

So you're saying a bystander is forced to force you to log into your Telegram account? Or how do you mean that?

What would logs of a mobile operator do higher forces any good when you use Telegram? The only SMS I have from them is at the first sign in procedure years ago, I highly doubt that my provider logged SMS since then.
Granted, the provider could look at IP endpoints your phone has contacted, but that can be easily resolved through a VPN connection.

At the same time, however, I wonder if it would help a person being confronted by the police or court whatsoever if they're using illegal tactics anyways, like forcing you to unlock your phone and show them your content, once they know you use Telegram anyways. Like, if they're going to arrest you with illegal methods for being on a demonstration or riot or whatever because the government is unhappy with what you're fighting for and they find out you use Telegram either by asking the provider for data (which is usually already illegal) or by looking for the app on your phone but with only a selection of chats, would those kind of people really evaluate whether or not the chats you have are fine and let you go or just arrest and convict you regardless of who you're in contact with?

> So you're saying a bystander is forced to force you to log into your Telegram account? Or how do you mean that?

The police beat the protesters and force them to enter the password from Telegram. This is what bandits, "police" and others do.

> The only SMS I have from them is at the first sign in procedure years
ago, I highly doubt that my provider logged SMS since then.

Mobile operators are forced to store and provide information about clients for several years, including content of a SMS. Read more about SORM (in Russia) and PRISM (in USA).

---
We are also talking about mass situations, and not just specific and isolated ones. In the case of individuals, yes, they can find another reason to make a person feel bad. In the case of mass, these people will not be able to understand whether there is a double bottom inside or not. This is better than if a person will be forced to enter to the Telegram and attackers will see chats with protests or something else.

phoshiko Phosiko Apr 9, 2021

I think it would be better if it would be possible that all passwords belonged to 1 account. because if someone has multiple phone numbers, via checking SMSs it could be implied that the person has multiple accounts. and sometimes buying new phone numbers is impossible or suspicious.

Show next 43 comments

Use cases

Potential issues

30594 Cards

Log In