Telegram CEO charged in France for ‘allowing criminal activity’ on messaging app
Telegram CEO charged in France for ‘allowing criminal activity’ on messaging app
Pavel Durov, who has French citizenship, faces prosecution over alleged failure to suppress spread of sexual images of children and calls for violence
The head of Telegram, Pavel Durov, has been charged by the French judiciary for allegedly allowing criminal activity on the messaging app but avoided jail with a €5m bail.
The Russian-born multi-billionaire, who has French citizenship, was granted release on condition that he report to a police station twice a week and remain in France, Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said in a statement.
The charges against Durov include complicity in the spread of sexual images of children and a litany of other alleged violations on the messaging app.
His surprise arrest has put a spotlight on the criminal liability of Telegram, the popular app with around 1 billion users, and has sparked debate over free speech and government censorship.
You're viewing a single thread.
Telegram has no end to end encryption by default.
Wording is confusing. Here are some better takes that sound valid and are true:
-
Telegram's e2ee is only available for chats of 2 people, and only on official mobile client.
-
Telegram's e2ee is a feature you have to enable whenever you need it (called secret chats).
and only on official mobile client.
This is incorrect, it is also available in other mobile clients (at least those which are forks of the official one).
And telegrams e2ee destroys all cool features it originally had
-
Yeah, I'm siding with the French government on this one at first blush. E2EE platforms are a necessary tool for combating government overreach and corporate surveillance. But if you willingly make a platform that's not E2EE, the idea of users being able to share this vile shit being a "necessary evil" toward the greater societal good completely falls apart. If you 1) have this vile content on your platform, 2) know it exists, 3) can trivially combat it in a targeted manner, and 4) choose not to, then you're complicit in its distribution.
I have no sympathy for a CEO who tries to dupe their userbase into believing their app is private and then not even take advantage of the one single ethical benefit to the platform not being E2EE.
That's a wild way of twisting the logic. Just because the platform doesn't fall under your e2ee definition doesn't mean they had to do something that is only possible on purely cloud services.
The reason for arrest doesn't even have anything to do with encryption. All content that facilitates mentioned crimes is public. Handling it shouldn't involve any backdoors or otherwise service-side decryption.
It is about encryption though. Since it's possible for him to get access to anything said in those group chats, they asked him to provide all Telegram has on those users and chats. He didn't, he got arrested.
He wouldn't have been in as much trouble if those chats were encrypted and Telegram couldn't know anything about what's said in what chat by which user.
Because hw wouldn't be "betraying" his users by giving everything that was asked of him by the authorities.
Again, the materials are in public groups. Anyone with an account can see them. If we imagine that Telegram had the same functionality as it does now over E2EE, the offending users would be sharing their keys in public, and Telegram would still be as viable.
Telegram deserves some pushback for misrepresenting themselves as secure (and for lying about their connections to Russia), but I wish Moxie fanboys were able to talk about Telegram without shouting "it's not E2EE" over and over because they don't understand it's a social network disguised as a messenger.
It would not be the same, access might remain public but if it was E2EE and not stored on Telegram's servers, new users wouldn't have access to the history of the channel.
And since Telegram would not be able to read the messages as they go through its servers, they would have plausible deniability if they were asked if they knew what was going on on which channels.I don't think Signal is the best messenger out there, I do think it's an good compromise between privacy and to have a enough appeal that most people would use it. I don't agree with most of what I have read Moxie write. But thanks for judging and generalizing by guessing who I must be.
You are right that it's probably more of a social network.
Assuming things should work that way is ignorant. According to you, service owners should design and redesign their services to not store any data in order to avoid arrests. Also that a service owner should invent stuff they might not had a plan for if they have even a theoretical possibility to help identify individual users, in other words go against policies they designed at some point.
Assuming things should work that way is ignorant. According to you, service owners should design and redesign their services to not store any data in order to avoid arrests.
If they don't want to be arrested yes, they should either do that or have good enough moderation to not get in the bad graces of some big entities like countries.
I'm not sure what you meant with the rest of your comment.
I mean the basic logic of the service was designed somewhere before its release. Data policies, promises to users are nothing if you assume services should adapt to stuff like this, at the expense of breaking those policies and promises.
Here is an old article from telegram about reasons for how it works https://telegra.ph/Why-Isnt-Telegram-End-to-End-Encrypted-by-Default-08-14
The thing is I think he did think of stuff like this.
From what the article says and from what I knew. Telegram purposefuly made "distributed cross-jurisdictional encrypted cloud storage" to try and evade governments. So he did have them in mind.
If we lived in a world where we didn't have to think about governments spying on us, we might have not even needed encryption to begin with.But thank you for the link, it was an interesting read even if I don't agree with what he's trying to convey / prove.
After reading the article and the links in the article, I'm not seeing anywhere where they stated the chats there requesting information on were public chats, did you have a source that discussed that I could read up on? It sounds fairly interesting to me.
No, just personal experience (I use telegram for many years) and absence of server data implications anywhere across the issues in the past (at this time too). You can find questionable or illegal businesses in telegram with a few words, they are all public channels. Hence "no moderation" accuses mentioned in every article.
There are of course darknet-like private communities, but I assume they are not a subject of interest at this time. Authorities would need to dig very deep past all the obvious illegal stuff, and telegram shouldn't care about resources consumed by such a small chunk of user base. Those groups will stay, as they are, private and safe, I assume, for quite some time.
Not to whatabout it but under this logic we got other "CEO"s who should see a similar treatment.
Will they?
Would love to see France arrest Elon.
bootlicker much? would you also be excited if Russia arrests Proton CEO for dubious reasons or is your reasoning based on ideology and tribalism?
Musk literally encouraged right-wing violence in the UK and is currently involved in a cyberbullying lawsuit in France alongside J.K. Rowling. The idea of someone like Musk, with immense wealth, facing repercussions for screaming lies into his platform is funny AF. But that probably won't happen since it’s a civil suit.
Proton is VPN and should remain a neutral portal that provides privacy through encryption without tracking or knowing the content being transmitted. Arresting Proton’s CEO under dubious claims would be concerning since VPNs are designed to protect user privacy, not to monitor activities.
Telegram, however, isn’t end-to-end encrypted by default and has hosted harmful content. If a platform is aware of illegal content, has the means to address it, and chooses not to, it becomes complicit in that distribution. Telegram’s lack of action makes its management culpable especially since they refused to cooperate with the government and laws of that country.
Personally, I feel any individual amassing billions while using their wealth to break the society in ways they deem fit is morally unacceptable. If I had my way, the extremely wealthy would be taxed to the point they'd wish for jail time. Wealth shouldn’t protect anyone from accountability or contribute to inequality. Elon is a scab, a grifter, and a beneficiary of apartheid.
@NegativeInf @scorp if your logic holds then why haven’t landline providers, Gmail, AOL, and ther companies come under the same scrutiny? The fact is all technology can and will be used outside of intended design.
Because they cooperate with authorities? Your phone line info, your email, your Facebook? It's all a subpoena or search warrant away.
Part of this arrest was due to management not cooperating with the government in the government trying to police dangerous content.
And none for group chats.
Is that the point here? Telegram is not a messaging app, it have that functionality but it does not revolve around that. And there is e2ee if you enable it. Thanks
But Telegram IS a messaging app? Their motto is literally "a new era of messaging".
Yes, but it's not it's only functionality, unlike signal. Also how is durovs arrest can be justified by saying "telegram aint e2ee"? Signal bros are something else.
I'm just calling out your phrase saying that Telegram is not a messaging app, when it is. That is all.
Also how is durovs arrest can be justified by saying “telegram aint e2ee”?
No one here has said or implied that.