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]
    link
    fedilink
    -13 months ago

    This is pure nonsense.

    Western governments hate Telegram because until now Telegram didn’t cooperate with Western intelligence services like American social media companies do. Everything on Meta or Google gets fed into NSA, but Telegram has been uncooperative.

    This will likely change after Durov’s arrest, but it was nice while it lasted.

    • Pup Biru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 months ago

      we don’t disagree about that: governments don’t like that telegram doesn’t cooperate; that’s not in dispute

      where the disagreement comes is the part after. telegram (and indeed meta, google, etc) have that data at their disposal. when served with a legal notice to provide information to authorities or shut down illegal behaviour on their platforms, they comply - sometimes that’s a bad thing if the government is overreaching, but sometimes it’s also a good thing (in the case of CSAM and other serious crimes)

      there are plenty of clear cut examples of where telegram should shut down channels - CSAM etc… that’s what this arrest was about; the rest is academic

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        there are plenty of clear cut examples of where telegram should shut down channels - CSAM etc… that’s what this arrest was about; the rest is academic

        Was it? The French authorities did not provide any convincing evidence, just accusations.

        • Pup Biru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          03 months ago

          you think they’re going to link to still available (that’s the point - they’re still available) sources of CSAM?

          if that’s your burden of proof then buddy i’m sorry to say there’s no way anyone’s going to convince you, and that’s not a good thing

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      03 months ago

      This will likely change after Durov’s arrest, but it was nice while it lasted.

      Why use a tool that relies on the goodwill of the operator to secure your privacy? It’s foolish in the first place.

      The operator of that tool tomorrow may not be the operator of today, and the operator of today can become compromised by blackmail, legally compelled (see OP), physically compelled, etc to break that trust.

      ANYONE who understood how telegram works and also felt it was a tool for privacy doesn’t really understand privacy in the digital age.

      Quoting @[email protected] :

      Other encrypted platforms: we have no data so we can’t turn over data

      Telegram: we collect it all. No you can’t know who is posting child abuse content

      And frankly, if they have knowledge of who is sharing CSAM, it’s entirely ethical for them to be compelled to share it.

      But what about when it’s who is questioning their sexuality or gender? Or who is organizing a protest in a country that puts down protests and dissent violently? Or… Or… Or… There are so many examples where privacy IS important AND ethical, but in zero of those does it make sense to rely on the goodwill of the operator to safeguard that privacy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -13 months ago

        ANYONE who understood how telegram works and also felt it was a tool for privacy doesn’t really understand privacy in the digital age.

        Telegram is the most realistic alternative to breaking Meta’s monopoly. You might like Signal very much, but nobody uses it and the user experience is horrible.

        • Pup Biru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          if metas monolopoloy is literally the only thing you care about, but replacing a terrible platform with another platform that lacks privacy protections is not much of an upgrade

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Telegram is the most realistic alternative to breaking Meta’s monopoly. You might like Signal very much, but nobody uses it and the user experience is horrible.

          Joke’s on you, I use nothing by Meta, nor Signal, nor telegram. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with what I like or not.