Telegram founder's arrest is radical — if it's a crime to build privacy tools, there will be no privacy
www.crikey.com.au
Pavel Durov's arrest suggests that the law enforcement dragnet is being widened from private financial transactions to private speech.

Pavel Durov’s arrest suggests that the law enforcement dragnet is being widened from private financial transactions to private speech.

The arrest of the Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in France this week is extremely significant. It confirms that we are deep into the second crypto war, where governments are systematically seeking to prosecute developers of digital encryption tools because encryption frustrates state surveillance and control. While the first crypto war in the 1990s was led by the United States, this one is led jointly by the European Union — now its own regulatory superpower.

Durov, a former Russian, now French citizen, was arrested in Paris on Saturday, and has now been indicted. You can read the French accusations here. They include complicity in drug possession and sale, fraud, child pornography and money laundering. These are extremely serious crimes — but note that the charge is complicity, not participation. The meaning of that word “complicity” seems to be revealed by the last three charges: Telegram has been providing users a “cryptology tool” unauthorised by French regulators.

  • @[email protected]
    26•2 months ago

    I am going to quote myself here:

    The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That’s unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

    If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

    • Libb
      -7•2 months ago

      I am going to quote myself here:

      Allow me to quote myself too, then:

      That’s not the point.

      I do not disagree with your remarks (I do not use Telegram), I simply consider it’s not the point or that it should not be.

      Obviously, laws should be enforced. What those laws are and how they are used to erode some stuff that were considered fundamental rights not so long ago is the sole issue, once again, im(v)ho ;)

      • @[email protected]
        23•2 months ago

        It IS the point. If Telegram was designed and set up as a pure carrier of encrypted information, no one could/should fault them for how the service is used.

        However, this is not the case, and they are able to monitor and control the content that is shared. This means they have a moral and legal responsibility to make sure the service is used in accordance with the law.

      • @Serinus
        1•2 months ago

        The point is that if you’re going to keep blackmail, you have to share with the government.

        The easy answer is to stop keeping blackmail.