Useless encryption is the same as no encryption.
If you put the key next to the lock, it's nit locked.
It's an abuse of language to call that encryption because if you say encryption you imply security.
But this is not secure and if it's not secure encryption is useless because security is the reason for encryption.
Encryption is not used for the sake of encryption but to protect the content of a message from unwanted access.
> Encryption is not used for the sake of encryption but to protect the content of a message from unwanted access.
Yes, that is what Telegram is doing. It may not be protecting the contents from who you want it protected from (everyone but you and the message recipient) but it does protect the contents from other (notice I did not say all) adversaries Telegram and its users don't want accessing.
It is still encrypted so use correct language, please and do not weaponize words to your own designs.
The context doesn't change the definition of encryption.
> It is more likely that you are trying to weaponize the words for your own designs.
Please point to where I have weaponized a word because on its face that accusation doesn't make any sense. I have not decided encryption means unencrypted. I have doggedly insisted words be used appropriately and even went so far as to give an example of mischaracterization of E2EE where I would call someone out.
If we go by definitions, it is not encrypted.
Ideally encryption means the process of encoding when only authorized parties can understand the information.
During the transportation of the information for the target recipient, the data in this case is on plaintext at some point on Telegram's server, and therefore it is not encrypted for the whole duration, going against the idea of transferring or holding information only for authorized parties in ciphertext format.
If we think that Telegram is the targeted party, then it would be encrypted as data is transferred or hold in ciphertext format for the whole process. However the Telegram is no the target, and the encryption is removed in the middle of process.
> Please point to where I have weaponized a word because on its face that accusation doesn't make any sense. I have not decided encryption means unencrypted. I have doggedly insisted words be used appropriately and even went so far as to give an example of mischaracterization of E2EE where I would call someone out.
You brought it up in the first place with a twisted definition.
From Wikipedia which you quoted bits from: "In cryptography, encryption is the process of encoding information. This process converts the original representation of the information, known as plaintext, into an alternative form known as ciphertext. Ideally, only authorized parties can decipher a ciphertext back to plaintext and access the original information."
> You brought it up in the first place with a twisted definition.
I did no such thing. You appear to be confusing idealism with the definition of encryption.
In any case we already have words for transport encryption, encryption at rest, and end to end encryption when referring to modes of encrypted data. Those are sufficient to cover the spectrum of encryption which exists. Calling encryption of one mode "unencrypted" which is not your ideal mode of encryption is disingenuous at best.
It's an abuse of language to call that encryption because if you say encryption you imply security. But this is not secure and if it's not secure encryption is useless because security is the reason for encryption. Encryption is not used for the sake of encryption but to protect the content of a message from unwanted access.