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.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
    22·
    3 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.

    • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
      23·
      3 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@aussie.zoneEnglish
        21·
        3 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

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        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.