Secret chat

[Marocco2]

Are you going to add this feature? Thanks :)

[telegramdesktop]

Secret chats require offline message history and state storage, which is not done at the moment and is not in current plans. So even if they will be added it won't be very soon.

[Marocco2]

OK, thanks

[hanovra]

People use Telegram because of its superior privacy in comparison to other IM clients, such as Whatsapp. Most of the users value Telegram's superior encryption and most likely the Secret Chat is the killer feature that could boost the adoption of the program among a much, much larger base.

[0nse]

I agree with @hanovra. Although a doubtable encryption, secret chats are the reason for me and most of my friends to use Telegram and to refrain from the Desktop clients, which are missing it.

[Someguy123]

@telegramdesktop you're losing users to some anonymous Russian guy with a closed source app for mac. He's implemented secret chats, and a bunch of other features. I'm still skeptical because it's closed source, so I would love it if TDesktop would get secret chat ASAP, it would stop me from switching, and allow me to convince my friends to use TDesktop instead of the Russian-made closed source app.

[jonashaag]

This is a showstopper for us

[animalillo]

i also think this should be prioritized over most of the other stuff, secure chats its the most important difference between telegram and a lot of other messaging apps

[iworker]

+1. People need this feature. Secret chat is the main difference between telegram and other IM's (Skype, for example). It's the main purpose of all project "Telegram" – privacy. Secret chat is 200% privacy which is not available nowhere else.!

[ZhandosKz]

This feature must be realised, because security should be the major vector of development

[ByteShare]

I created a new request for this, sorry. I created #236
Why is this request closed?

[Marocco2]

closed because the author atm isn't interested to implement it.

[khloke]

I would love to get this feature too.

[SVSagi]

Everyone, I told about desktop telegram application did ask for the secret chat option, after they installed it. Still hoping for it.

[electricessence]

So it sounds like one of the challenges for this is that a secret chat can only happen from one client to another and can't be synchronized across multiple clients. I'm fine with that! Even if a secret chat can only exist for the current session!

This is a great open source implementation. I would like to contribute. How can I help? I would prefer to discuss a plan instead of forking and doing my own thing.

[stormcloud-gnu]

Yeah, please add this feature. Most users agree that this is much more important than anything else.
I chose telegram mainly because of the desktop client AND the secret chat, and it's really a shame that i can't have both at the same time. I don't want to move to another app because except from that issue, telegram is just PERFECT; it works like a charm.

[Marocco2]

Could you, @telegramdesktop , reopen this issue, so new users don't make requests about secret chats, please? Thanks :)

[tuxflo]

I also think that secret chat should get the highest priority. I can't tell my friends that they have to use the commandline version (telegram-cli) for secret chats.

Thanks a lot.

[hydrosIII]

Secret chats are currently implemented in the OS X client. Also they are implemented in telegram-purple and cutegram, other two telegram clients. And the telegram-cli for linux.

https://github.com/majn/telegram-purple
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/Cutegram

[jefferai]

I have the OSX client, as does another user. Both of us are on 0.7.10. The other user has an option in the compose drop-down to make a secret chat; I don't. No idea what the issue is.

[Someguy123]

@jefferai There are two versions, the cross-platform Tdesktop which has no support for secret chat, and there's also the app store version which DOES have secret chat (but only works on OSX).

You're probably using tdesktop

[jefferai]

Yeah.

[stayen]

@zQueal "Telegram uses its own encryption standard which isn't implemented on anything but mobile because that's specifically what it's designed for."

Wrong. From programmer's viewpoint, there's no problem implementing (in fact just recompiling) exactly the same features for desktop clients.

The lack of secure chats in desktop version make it just "one of many" instant messengers, completely nullifying the primary declared advantage of the TM. Pity the desktop developers do not understand that.

[matthiasbeyer]

👍 We want encryption on the desktop app.

[HackSane]

This is obviously falling on deaf ears. I gave up and switched to Wickr a while ago. It does everything I wanted out of Telegram and then some.

[aphirst]

@Dega704 Is there really a point? Wickr is proprietary.

[aphirst]

I do have a technical question, though. When, say, someone opens a Secret Chat with me, they only get the option to type into it after, say, my phone gets online and the 2 devices perform the handshake. However, what is supposed to happen if the "recipient" of the Secret Chat has n>1 devices online at that time with Secret-Chat-capability (be they 2 mobiles, or a mobile and a desktop client)? What determines which client "receives" that Secret Chat?

[HackSane]

It is proprietary and has had an independent audit. That's the best I can do for now. If you find a better alternative that's open and has all of the same features let me know.

[aphirst]

Well Telegram does have the Encryption you need if you use the mobile versions or if you use cutegram or the Pidgin plugin (with which you can even daisy-chain the encryption by using OTR on top, though of course only with other Pidgin-Telegram users).

[matthiasbeyer]

@Dega704 and others... what about tox? I mean, it is not in usable shape by now, but it will be an alternative, right?

[aphirst]

@matthiasbeyer I use Tox too but it's not really viable on mobile connections, at least at the moment.

[jvoisin]

hahahahahhahahahahhahahhaahahha
Yeah, so, thanks but no thanks.

[matthiasbeyer]

@jvoisin Just because one person is an ***hole this does not mean the project is not valueable. Anyways, this is not subject of this issue, is it?

[telegramdesktop]

@aphirst Currently all devices receive the request to open the secret chat and the one that does it first gets it. This works well with the idea of secret chats being available only on mobile apps, because in 99% of cases you have only one mobile device authed + some others on different platforms (home pc, work pc, laptop, tablet, etc).

[aphirst]

@telegramdesktop Thanks for clarifying!

I wonder whether perhaps it might be a good idea to implement a means for a client to present the option to "reject" a specific Secret Chat request, so that it can be deferred to another logged-on device? Even without the Secret Chats in the official desktop client, I do indeed use Cutegram on one of my desktop machines, and I have 2 Telegram sessions on my phone (I dualboot two custom ROMs).

I'd be curious to know what you think, at least. As I'm sure you've become lucidly aware, secret chat capability in the desktop clients is very strongly desired by the community irrespective of whether it was considered by the Telegram project. 😄

[MehmetKursat]

Please implement this already...

[miphe]

Yep, this is the first feature I looked for after adding contacts.

[robsonsobral]

Just to let let you all know that the pidgin plugin already has a Windows version and it supports secret chats.

[ghost]

Oh my god.! Approximately everyone who installed Telegram was did it due to the Secret Chat functionality. If telegram desktop is not going to support it, then what is the point of Telegram? Whatsapp already does my daily commute, and facebook messenger is a great cloud based IM too. Telegram only enters with its privacy and security, but , to be honest, I see that telegram falls short of its claims.
Disappointment.

[stayen]

@skepticatt I have contacted the Telegram support channel online. They confirmed the secret chats in desktop implementation are low priority feature (??). "We will implement it sometime, no definite plans, though".

So yes, a disappointment - the primary privacy tool is, in fact, low priority (low importance?) feature.

[haraldkrischner]

Low priority for a substantial security feature? That's pathetic. What is high priority then? Animated Stickers or what?

[rorycornell]

+1 we would use telegram more.

[slick97477]

I also agree use this on android alot because of the encryption, but why is it advertised across the board for encryption but yet it is not actually available on desktop version

[matthiasbeyer]

Is it also a low prio feature that the "encryption" is secure or what? How much time do they invest in secure encryption when they invest this little time in encryption at all?

[brawaru]

Please. Telegram got new secret chats v2.0, when we got this secret chats in TDesktop? 😿

[0cjs]

Yet another vote for getting secret chats in Telegram desktop.

[auchri]

Please discuss further at #871 :)