# Telegram CEO Pavel Durov arrested in France **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrested-in-france/20301 **Category:** General **Tags:** software **Created:** 2024-08-25T04:57:24Z **Posts:** 112 ## Post 1 by @Tech-Trooper — 2024-08-25T04:57:25Z Pavel Durrov arrested in France for the lack of content moderation. That should be a joke. > **[Telegram CEO Pavel Durov arrested at French airport](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2kz9kn93o)** > > The billionaire was detained in Paris and is being investigated in relation to a lack of moderation on the messaging app. --- ## Post 2 by @pinkandwhite — 2024-08-25T05:09:51Z Both Russian and Ukrainian Armed Forces in shambles rn --- ## Post 3 by @TinFoilHat — 2024-08-25T07:48:27Z looking forward french authorities to arrest CEOs of other platforms, esp. Chinese platforms as well, would be very fun to watch. --- ## Post 4 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T08:09:41Z **Interesting quotes I’m reading from the privacy community on Twitter:** [**@GrapheneOS:**](https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1827476729864048877) _Telegram is capable of handing over all messages in every group and regular one-to-one chat to authorities in France or any other country. A real private messaging app like Signal isn’t capable of turning over your messages and media. Telegram/Discord aren’t private platforms._ [**@Bernstein\_v\_US:**](https://x.com/Bernstein_v_US/status/1827507136823280021) _Interestingly, he may not have been arrested if Telegram was actually e2ee. Having access to the conversations and not handing them over when the gov demanded it is a very different legal position than not being able to access the conversations at all._ That last one really resonates with me. Even if you think this arrest isn’t warranted, had Telegram embraced E2EE by default, instead of trying to desperately compete with WhatsApp on size, Durov might not be in this situation. --- ## Post 5 by @crossroads — 2024-08-25T08:47:35Z Of course this has nothing with “freeeedooom”, it’s a refusal to comply with law. Similar was when people complained when Proton provided user info to French government, and some activists were arrested. Though I don’t think E2EE would help. For this purpose (large public groups) it’ would be too much work and resources to serve tens of thousands of users with multiple devices. Telegram is more of a social network than messenger. --- ## Post 6 by @IksNorTen — 2024-08-25T08:55:25Z The problem is not that It’s technically more difficult to set E2EE for large public groups (though It’s still possible if some efforts are put in) - the problem is that Telegram claims to be a private and secure messaging application, which fools a lot of people who think they’ll find anonymity and confidentiality in this application --- ## Post 7 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T08:57:50Z > [@crossroads](#): > > Telegram is more of a social network than messenger. I agree. But all messaging apps are categorized as social media in app stores, and I would agree that they are social media. Just as a blog is social media because people can comment, and the author can reply. --- ## Post 8 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T08:59:59Z > [@IksNorTen](#): > > The problem is not that It’s technically more difficult to set E2EE for large public groups (though It’s still possible if some efforts are put in) - the problem is that Telegram claims to be a private and secure messaging application, which fools a lot of people who think they’ll find anonymity and confidentiality in this application EXACTLY! This has always been my issue with Telegram. They are very much guilty of privacy washing, and their marketing absolutely works. I can see it in the comments. I hate that some people in the privacy community recommend Telegram, even if they include the caveat of it not being E2EE by default. --- ## Post 9 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T09:05:44Z > [@crossroads](#): > > Of course this has nothing with “freeeedooom”, it’s a refusal to comply with law. I agree that it’s mainly about refusal to comply with law. But I do think it is somewhat related to freedom, but not in the way some people are saying on social media. To the extent that governments want backdoors to E2EE messaging apps, and they do, it is related to freedom. But yes, you still have to comply to the law. Signal has never been in the same situation because they comply to warrants, they just have practically nothing to give, because they don’t keep that data. All that being said, it has been reported multiple times in the past that Telegram has submitted data about their user with various government authorities, but they have always denied it. And that is what bothers me. That they lie about it when it’s reported in respectable news outlets. I could be wrong, but I believe the countries involved were India and Germany. --- ## Post 10 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T09:29:24Z This is very conflicting news. On one hand, it’s no surprise - Telegram regularly hosts rather unsavoury content that the US and allies want some leverage on. And it’s not E2EE, which is the irony icing the cake, because it removes plausible deniability. On the other, Telegram has been used by a **lot** of people to store and share files, like leaked source code and classified information. This is because it’s very commonly available and free to use, and you get a lot of storage space for free, or alternatively at very low prices. The arrest of the CEO will probably provide the French police with leverage to expose people they want to get at. It wouldn’t be the first time Telegram has done this either, so it’s natural to assume this: > **[After Delhi High Court Ruling, Telegram Discloses Names, Phone Numbers &...](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/after-court-order-telegram-discloses-phone-numbers-ip-addresses-of-users-accused-of-sharing-infringing-material-215311)** > > Complying with the August 30 ruling that held that courts in India c (Note how it’s often used to take down petty crime like piracy. Code leaks on Telegram will probably reduce if the police leverage what they have against Durov.) Finally, Telegram has a lot of shadiness surrounding it in general, so well-informed people in our community will avoid using it. [Messengers | Madaidan's Insecurities](https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/messengers.html#telegram) So at least it won’t affect us. But mind you, this will likely have a significant impact, even if the press won’t openly state it if hosted files start going down. --- ## Post 11 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T09:38:49Z > [@PurpleDime](#): > > [**@GrapheneOS:**](https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1827476729864048877) _Telegram is capable of handing over all messages in every group and regular one-to-one chat to authorities in France or any other country. A real private messaging app like Signal isn’t capable of turning over your messages and media. Telegram/Discord aren’t private platforms._ Exactly this. I’m honestly not surprised, but it’s the same that applies to email providers. You simply can’t say no to lawful interception requests if you feasibly can comply with them. The only way around that simply is to not have the data, or only have encrypted data that you cannot decrypt. Telegram was never a “secure messenger” and not many people use that [secret chat](https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different) feature. --- ## Post 12 by @Tech-Trooper — 2024-08-25T09:48:50Z Indeed. But Still it’s funny to arrest the CEO. I don’t have the legal processes Telegram has been through, they can simply block Telegram from app stores and Telegram IP addresses. So, if they start arresting all CEOs in case of non-compliance, then we have a bigger problem. --- ## Post 13 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T09:51:17Z Adding to the “secret chat” thing, it’s not even possible to use it on the desktop clients - _only_ mobile. It seems their strategy was to hook people in with the beautiful, smooth UX and free storage, while putting on a facade of a “private” messenger (and we all know how people fall for that, sadly). All the while discouraging mass use of their E2EE feature, which leaks metadata and uses a weakened protocol anyway. And now it’s backfired on them - though, their servers are run from the UAE, so getting to those will still be difficult, and I assume someone is sneakily making copies of the data and shipping them to other locations, if they haven’t already. --- ## Post 14 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T10:05:11Z Precisely. Telegram’s primary goal is scale, NOT privacy. They want to compete with WhatsApp and become the biggest messaging platform. And their strategy is working. Telegram doesn’t have E2EE by default because it’s impossible to accomplish without dramatically slowing down their growth. Many of their features are hard to implement in E2EE. Signal encrypts emojis and GIFs. Telegram doesn’t. Telegram has the best UI and UX for any messaging app as far as I’m concerned, but the main reason they are able to accomplish that and have all these cool features is because they are not E2EE by default. I’m sure that more than 95% of Telegram users don’t use secret chat. --- ## Post 15 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T10:18:17Z > Telegram doesn’t have E2EE by default because it’s impossible to accomplish without dramatically slowing down their growth. One of the best features of Telegram is the API people can use to code elaborate bots, which just grows a ton of attack surface for an app that’s supposedly “Private-and-Secure”. But it sure does help retain users with the shinyness. Also, Telegram regularly making headlines for aiding piracy and having content like crime, drug vendors, and war leaks (EDIT: also a lot of cryptobros backing them) helps them in a way - they get to look private while retaining all this content on their service. It’s a magical PR trick for them, and when reputed figures like Meredith Whittaker from Signal speak against them with proof, they’ll retort back with FUD and look like they’ve won anyway. Who cares? The public will go with their service while it’s convenient, and convince themselves it’s private, so long as they don’t need to worry about the finer details. Madaidan also linked to an example of this in his article I linked - Telegram repeatedly spreads FUD about an actual private messenger with a good track record (Signal). And it’s working! All while the servers are hosted with unencrypted messages in a country known for suppressing criticism of its authoritarian regime and poor working conditions, with a surveillance state of its own. The gravy train will chug along until the VCs get impatient and funding runs out, or the UAE starts pressing on their end of the deal. Either way, privacy-minded folks with heavier file-hosting needs will need to find other platforms. IPFS and Bittorrent might help. But Telegram’s clock is ticking. And we need to find another way. --- ## Post 16 by @KeepItSimple — 2024-08-25T11:02:01Z > [@crossroads](#): > > Of course this has nothing with “freeeedooom”, it’s a refusal to comply with law. Telegram is the only big uncensored platform. Sure it IS about “freedom”. Censoring Telegram like YouTube or other platforms will make it so much useless. That is funny if every government now will want to censor Telegram and make it by arresting Durov. And where is the “freedom” than? --- ## Post 17 by @anon43985288 — 2024-08-25T11:04:01Z Would Meridith go to jail for Signal? I don’t think so. _Sorry had to shitpost this_ --- ## Post 18 by @asanyan — 2024-08-25T11:06:00Z > [@PurpleDime](#): > > All that being said, it has been reported multiple times in the past that Telegram has sumbitted data about their user with various government authories Exactly. I don’t think that this happened because Telegram refuses to comply, but because Telegram isn’t complying _as much_ as they would like. This is about control, and even if you don’t like Telegram, it’s a bad precedent. Today it’s Telegram, tomorrow who knows. --- ## Post 19 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T11:15:33Z Maybe if people like Elon had their way. In classic Musk fashion, he had to run his mouth and spout FUD praising Telegram and dogwhistling at Signal. > [@According to Elon Musk, Signal has "known vulnerabilities that are not being addressed"](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/according-to-elon-musk-signal-has-known-vulnerabilities-that-are-not-being-addressed/18206): > > Pretty insane for him to make such a bold claim like this with no evidence to back it up. pensive_face[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1787589564917490059](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1787589564917490059) [clOuwmpvNHvbi6v6F1zcwIyUuuPLuEKG] --- ## Post 20 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T11:22:31Z Exactly. It’s better to have a gun pointed at your head than to already be shot down (using a proprietary centralized platform that caves in to censorship more often). But Telegram is still pointing a (metaphorical) gun at a poster’s head, and I doubt the vast majority of its users are perpetually connecting to it via Tor or a VPN. Not to mention it uses phone number authentication for signups, which it also doesn’t encrypt with deniability like Signal does. Leaking their users to the police will prove to be quite easy for them if they can do it to free the CEO. It’s all well and good for the masses to roleplay “freedom and privacy” but when it comes to ensuring actual privacy, we all know where their priorities lie. Telegram is on top despite repeatedly caving in to both Indian and German authorities. With the EU ramping up censorship behind the scenes once more, they’re a target. And you can bet they’ll snitch on their users soon enough. Sadly, any useful content archived on their CDNs is now at-risk as well. But that’s the case with a lot of the internet these days. --- ## Post 21 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T11:25:29Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > Adding to the “secret chat” thing, it’s not even possible to use it on the desktop clients - _only_ mobile. > > It seems their strategy was to hook people in with the beautiful, smooth UX and free storage, while putting on a facade of a “private” messenger (and we all know how people fall for that, sadly). All the while discouraging mass use of their E2EE feature, which leaks metadata and uses a weakened protocol anyway. > [@PurpleDime](#): > > I’m sure that more than 95% of Telegram users don’t use secret chat. And these things are probably why it’s permitted for use inside Russia, as well as a lot of notable Russian politicians use it and thus indirectly promote it’s use. > [@KeepItSimple](#): > > Telegram is the only big uncensored platform. Sure it IS about “freedom”. Censoring Telegram like YouTube or other platforms will make it so much useless. I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Remember that a lot of these lawful requests are for things which are perfectly acceptable (eg CSAM distribution etc). > [@anon43985288](#): > > Would Meridith go to jail for Signal? I don’t think so. She also isn’t being asked to hand over data she doesn’t have. --- ## Post 22 by @Tech-Trooper — 2024-08-25T11:29:11Z > [@anon43985288](#): > > Would Meridith go to jail for Signal? I don’t think so. She does not have to. It’s the similar argument with VPNs. Tech lore has a great video about it. [https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HMl\_cWvA\_\_w](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HMl_cWvA__w) Edit: Will you go to jail for any apps you use if you were the CEO? --- ## Post 23 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T11:29:48Z > [@Tech-Trooper](#): > > It’s the similar argument with VPNs VPNs are also not E2EE. --- ## Post 24 by @Tech-Trooper — 2024-08-25T11:31:38Z Yes, but the point is about having no data to give in as mentioned above posts. :grinning_face: At the end, E2EE is a tech for avoiding your provider to have data about you --- ## Post 25 by @crossroads — 2024-08-25T11:37:35Z Freedom and privacy are violated when E2EE is banned or broken, and online anonimity is not possible. Telegram doesn’t have either of those, at least not properly implemented. On the other hand, Signal, Tuta, Tor, Element… are fighting for actual user rights. > [@KeepItSimple](#): > > Telegram is the only big uncensored platform. Sure it IS about “freedom”. Censoring Telegram like YouTube or other platforms will make it so much useless. > > That is funny if every government now will want to censor Telegram and make it by arresting Durov. And where is the “freedom” than? What about Truth social :smiley: Any platform is big as their users make it. No one can be stopped to use Briar or SimpleX for the same purposes as Telegram. Anyone can host Mastodon, Matrix, XMPP… server in UAE and offer the same thing. There are bunch of uncensored servers all around the world, and for most of them you don’t have to provide phone number tied to your real name and address > [@anon43985288](#): > > Would Meridith go to jail for Signal? I don’t think so. Why would she? Signal gives all the user information they have, each time they get request from the court (state). And they absolutely have no way to check if Signal is used for any illegal content or activities. > [@asanyan](#): > > Exactly. I don’t think that this happened because Telegram refuses to comply, but because Telegram isn’t complying _as much_ as they would like. This is about control, and even if you don’t like Telegram, it’s a bad precedent. Today it’s Telegram, tomorrow who knows. There’s no way to comply as much as you like. If you are requested to provide all the information you have, you have to do that. The only way is not to have that information, which for Durov and Telegram is not an option. Fight against mandatory backdoors or usage of true identity online is a proper way. Hosting illegal content in UAE and claiming you care for users is not. --- ## Post 26 by @asanyan — 2024-08-25T11:42:10Z > [@crossroads](#): > > If you are requested to provide all the information you have, you have to do that I don’t think the reason is as much refusing to provide information, but refusing to censor opposing political opinions/“disinformation”. Telegram is/was the only big player that doesn’t censor opposing political views. Too big to ignore. > [@crossroads](#): > > What about Truth social Not big enough, and it does censor. Telegram is/was a nail sticking up. EDIT: Telegram does remove CP/other really bad things. Maybe not as quickly and efficiently as people would hope, but they do remove it. --- ## Post 27 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T11:43:20Z > [@asanyan](#): > > Telegram is/was the only big player that doesn’t censor opposing political views. Too big to ignore. I wouldn’t be so sure about that, they have in the passed slipped information to relevant authorities when they deem fit to do so. Can’t imagine being anti-putin and say living in Russia and sharing your views about it inside that country for example and thinking nobody is going to visit you. This is one of the reasons PG doesn’t talk about “the eyes” or any of that rubbish because it entirely depends on what is being said where. The only assurance you have is that strong audited E2EE is, actually protected. If it’s anything other than that you should consider it not private and not get caught up on whether or not you think a service cares about freedoms or not. --- ## Post 28 by @KeepItSimple — 2024-08-25T11:46:28Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > It’s all well and good for the masses to roleplay “freedom and privacy” but when it comes to ensuring actual privacy, we all know where their priorities lie. 99% of Telegrams users are not under a gun, as they do not use anything illegal on Telegram. If one afraid of his data being accessible by government agents they would not use Telegram, right? Or at least secret chats, but there are better apps for that. And if you want more privacy Telegram allows to buy virtual number with TON? Those numbers are not tied to a user, they are anonymous by their nature. --- ## Post 29 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T11:55:07Z > If one afraid of his data being accessible by government agents they would not use Telegram, right? “Nothing to hide” fallacy here. Telegram markets themselves primarily as private and secure, and so it’s hypocritical for them to put on that facade while they _literally_ don’t even use E2EE by default, don’t allow it at all on desktop, have tons of attack surface through added fancy features, continue to use their own inferior MTProto protocol for encryption, and don’t provide any server-side source code. > And if you want more privacy Telegram allows to buy virtual number with TON? It’s not privacy if you need to jump through additional hoops and use a shady service that way. Signal lets you register with any regular phone number and it’s been proven repeatedly that they can’t link phone numbers to messages or accounts: [Signal \>\> Government Communication](https://signal.org/bigbrother/) Besides, how many of Telegram’s users do you reckon even use these obscure privacy routes? They’re inconvenient and downplayed on purpose. Like I and @PurpleDime talked about, it’s done that way deliberately to induce a false sense of privacy, all while your stuff is being hosted unencrypted in a country notorious for an extremely poor privacy and human rights record. You can’t wax poetic about privacy while you don’t care for basic measures regarding it by default. That is Telegram’s model. --- ## Post 30 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-25T12:03:33Z This is very worrying turn of event. Telegram CEO is being made responsible for all the contents on his platform, while he clearly wasn’t responsible of what was said on private group chats. All the terrorism/piracy/CSAM thing is just an excuse. --- ## Post 31 by @KeepItSimple — 2024-08-25T12:18:01Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > You can’t wax poetic about privacy while you don’t care for basic measures regarding it by default. That is Telegram’s model. I agree with you. I just said there are ways.. ..for paranoids, etc. --- ## Post 32 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T12:18:48Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > This is very worrying turn of event. Telegram CEO is being made responsible for all the contents on his platform, Is it really though? Are there any other situations where a provider can host things without E2EE without any fear of well established international law? I don’t think so. --- ## Post 33 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-25T12:23:07Z > [@dngray](#): > > without any fear of well established international law? What" well established international law" ? Telegram CEO wasn’t even on Europol list, just French’s. It’s like holding Instagram responsible for what’s in private groups. That’s what dictatorships like China do,not the West. Telegram did in fact comply and banned cerrtain groups when the gov ask to. I am not saying the law allowed Durov’s conduti, rather than the law has chilling effect on free speech. --- ## Post 34 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T12:35:43Z Yeah, this has been well-known since the days of Lavabit (Snowden’s preferred email provider) being shut down. Not to mention all the torrent trackers and piracy forums that were hotbeds in the 2000s but that the feds have all but clamped down on. --- ## Post 35 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T12:51:35Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > What" well established international law" ? Well just so you know CSAM related activities are illegal everywhere. > [@anon80779245](#): > > It’s like holding Instagram responsible for what’s in private groups. But they’re not private groups, they’re not even encrypted, which gives owners zero deniability. --- ## Post 36 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T13:15:29Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > Madaidan also linked to an example of this in his article I linked - Telegram repeatedly spreads FUD about an actual private messenger with a good track record (Signal). Yes, I’ve seen that countless times. Every time Signal or WhatsApp introduces a new feature that Telegram has had for years, they use it as an opportunity to brag at how much better and ahead they are. The big difference is, with Signal, with those features, you have actual privacy because it’s E2EE. --- ## Post 37 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T13:17:11Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > Madaidan also linked to an example of this in his article I linked - Telegram repeatedly spreads FUD about an actual private messenger with a good track record (Signal). I do think that there is an important lesson that the developers of privacy tools need to learn from Telegram. And it’s that UI & UX matters. I’m sure they already know that, but I think they underestimate how much it matters. I remember listening to an interview of the creator of the E2EE note app, Notesnook. In it, he said that the way they go about developing Notesnook, it’s so that their users don’t even have to think about privacy. Meaning that they are drawn to all the cool features they enjoy first, and privacy is most likely secondary. The average user does not use privacy protecting products and services primarily because it’s private, but because of other features they enjoy that are similar or better than what you find in non privacy protecting products and services. I started using Telegram years ago as an alternative to WhatsApp, because I mistakenly thought it was private. I tried to convert my friends and family, and I did. My main selling point to them was privacy. But that’s not what converted them. What converted them is the fact that Telegram had a cool UI & UX, it was fast, it had a desktop app and could be synced to multiple devices simultaneously. --- ## Post 38 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T13:29:13Z 100% agree with you on every point here. You have put into words exactly how I feel. Telegram rose to the top because its developers understood how to provide good UX. And Telegram has the best UX of any messaging service I’ve seen, hands down. Wipes the floor with everything else. Even madaidan (for all his legitimate criticisms of it) uses it for public chats. It’s understandable that with their lower funding and lack of hired user design skill, FOSS and privacy software channels will suffer from a slower learning curve here. But like you said, devs like the Notesnook ones are providing this. And improvement is being made, we just always have room for more. > The average user does not use privacy protecting products and services primarily because it’s private, but because of other features they enjoy that are similar or better than what you find in non privacy protecting products and services. Which is why Linux is seeing a slight but significant uptick among home users - not privacy or control, but because it’s more useful and less of a hassle to a particular set of users than the rancid cesspool Windows Home has devolved into. And it’s why Telegram has been seeing an uptick here compared to Whatsapp. --- ## Post 39 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T13:37:27Z > [@crossroads](#): > > Freedom and privacy are violated when E2EE is banned or broken, and online anonimity is not possible. Telegram doesn’t have either of those, at least not properly implemented. > On the other hand, Signal, Tuta, Tor, Element… are fighting for actual user rights. Indeed. This is why I never ever bought into Pavel Durov’s freedom fighter act. It always smacked of BS, especially when he talked about Signal and [tried to defend why Telegram doesn’t have E2EE by default.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220309041553/https://tgraph.io/Why-Isnt-Telegram-End-to-End-Encrypted-by-Default-08-14). He uses a lot of deceptive weasel language, and most Telegram users are bamboozled by it. [An anonmous Redditor completely debunked his claimes in this excellent blog post.](https://telegra.ph/Why-you-should-stop-reading-Durovs-blog-posts-11-25) --- ## Post 40 by @anon43985288 — 2024-08-25T13:46:37Z So has any French authorities come out and said exactly what Durov is guilty of? Looks like we are flying off rumors until an official charge is lodged. --- ## Post 41 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T13:47:24Z > [@KeepItSimple](#): > > 99% of Telegrams users are not under a gun, as they do not use anything illegal on Telegram. If you’ve ever shared a copyrighted file on any messaging app, a song, an e-book, a movie, technically that’s illegal if you don’t have permission. I suspect the vast majority of people are guilty of having done that at some point or another in the life, even unknowingly. Most people I know, who use Telegram or other messaging apps, have done that. Telegram is a convenient way to share files. It’s also a convenient way to back up your own files. This is why cloud services like Google Drive and Dropbox can prevent you from sharing your own files with friends and family. --- ## Post 42 by @PurpleDime — 2024-08-25T13:55:17Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > It’s understandable that with their lower funding and lack of hired user design skill, FOSS and privacy software channels will suffer from a slower learning curve here. But like you said, devs like the Notesnook ones are providing this. And improvement is being made, we just always have room for more. Indeed. But I think it’s important to recognize that developing good E2EE privacy tools with great UI & UX will always be slower than developing non E2EE software. Even with millions in funding. --- ## Post 43 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-25T14:25:07Z > [@dngray](#): > > Well just so you know CSAM related activities are illegal everywhere. AFAIK, Telegram alaways had a policy of strict banning od “very bad” stuff, such as CSAM & terrorism. > [@dngray](#): > > But they’re not private groups, The point I’m making is that they are private groups, in the sense that they are invite-only, and therefore there is an expectation of privacy. Sure, Telegram could spy on all messages and discover the shady groups, but that would be a breach of user trust. > [@PurpleDime](#): > > They want to compete with WhatsApp and become the biggest messaging platform. The thing we forget, is that Telegram is still open-source. It probably is the most used FOSS app; with 950 millions users (if you believe Durov’s claims). > [@PurpleDime](#): > > But yes, you still have to comply to the law. IANAL disclaimer. Telegram never was designed as a “very large online platform” under EU’s DSA. If Telegram isn’t compliant with French and EU law, then ban it. But there was no discussion of non-compliance (by officials, AFAIK) before this moment. --- ## Post 44 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T14:29:15Z > still open-source It’s a service, not just a selfhosted app. The server-side code is not open-source. Besides, even if it were, it wouldn’t matter - they could log the server activity anyway, including the chat logs that would lie open to them, because **telegram does not use E2EE.** --- ## Post 45 by @privacycarrot — 2024-08-25T14:42:39Z There are rumours that Russian government officials are getting directives to delete sensitive data they sent/store on Telegram. Don’t know how many people here use it, but if you do and shared anything sensitive over non-secret chats, you may want to do the same. I hope that would be a lesson for Pavel, and that we’ll see MTProto 3.0 in the future with E2EE enabled by default. Although I don’t personally think it would help in cases like this as this is literally [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/538/) situation. --- ## Post 46 by @anon80779245 — 2024-08-25T14:42:53Z It doesn’t change anything to the fact that it’s a win for open-source world. Not privacy related though. --- ## Post 47 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-08-25T14:57:27Z It’s not a lesson for Pavel: Telegram’s business model relies on this breach of privacy. I don’t expect the service to get any better now, UX or privacy-wise. It’s the start of its “enshittification” if anything. --- ## Post 50 by @klueman — 2024-08-25T16:06:05Z Feels odd to me to see people suggesting Telegram selling itself as “private” was misleading only because it didn’t offer E2EE by default. I would argue the average user, outside authoritarian countries, doesn’t think of privacy as being an inability for any government in the world to access that data if requested _at minimum_. They likely only think of it in terms of it being invite-only, non-indexed, phone verified, self-deleteable, not tied to their Google or Apple accounts, and generally controlled by an entity that isn’t selling their data. Like, yeah, Signal is more secure, with E2EE encryption by default and such, but it’s also so closed as to lose usability and it’s not easy to move away from. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for users to want something that balances their privacy concerns with a degree of freedom and usability. Most people in these privacy spaces seriously overestimate how many restrictions and hoops the average user is willing to jump through for “absolute” privacy, and they consistently downplay how many of these services are walled gardens from which you can’t personally retrieve your own data. The security and privacy communities have gotten too comfortable taking away the user’s own agency as a shortcut, rather than empowering them with the tools to decide for themselves how much usability they want to trade for security and privacy. For that reason, I would hate to see the Telegrams give way to things like Signal --- ## Post 51 by @crossroads — 2024-08-25T17:22:25Z > [@KeepItSimple](#): > > That is not how it works… Telegram is not just a messenger, it has lots of uses, but one of the biggest one is social media and news. It is mostly uncensored. Social media tells you these things are good, so use them, and these things are bad, so they are banned and you can not use them, even if you want. That is dumb. I agree that Telegram is not private and is not secure. Okey. It is uncensored! You can view and read all kind of things you need and there is no good or bad things. That is freedom and that is why Telegram is so much better for casual user, not some privacy paranoids locking themselves in Signal or even Briar (lol) But we must keep in mind that some uncensored stuff is also illegal in some/many countries. The best example is USA’s 1st amendment, which if you followed in most of the world (Europe included), would quickly get you in jail. I suppose we are all against censorship, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for banning illegal stuff --- ## Post 52 by @dngray — 2024-08-25T20:25:27Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > AFAIK, Telegram alaways had a policy of strict banning od “very bad” stuff, such as CSAM & terrorism. That they may have, but as others have said in this thread the usability of the bot system was being in sale of said (as well as others) illegal materials. I think that in itself is probably why it is such high priority among international LE. What is funny is all the spam you ever get on matrix is usually some crypto investment scam trying to get you onto Telgram :laughing: Also related blog which usually does good discussion: > **[Is Telegram really an encrypted messaging app?](https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram-is-not-really-an-encrypted-messaging-app/)** > > This blog is reserved for more serious things, and ordinarily I wouldn’t spend time on questions like the above. But much as I’d like to spend my time writing about exciting topics, som… --- ## Post 53 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-25T21:14:49Z Apparently French corporate governance model holds CEOs personally accountable for violations by corporations. So they had warrants out for him already and he knew that as well. He was avoiding EU in general before this, not sure why he would risk this. I am no fan of telegram and their marketing, but I do think this is bad precedent irrespective of how much data telegram keeps or if its e2ee or not. Reminds me of the famous poem on persecution ([Link](https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/)) Since legality is determined by nations, a lot of nations can simply declare activities we think are legal to be illegal tomorrow. There are already constant [attacks against encryption](https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/02/eu-csam-scanning-council-proposal-flaws/) in the EU. Imagine if they declare encryption illegal, would they then be right to arrest Protonmail team? Also, would action like this also justify Russia now arresting any developers working on software projects of the Western world? After all, they too must be in violation of some Russian law, or new laws can be passed to make sure they would be in violation. Looking forward to following this case closely, it would set a lot of precedents. --- ## Post 54 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-25T23:03:12Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > Looking forward to following this case closely, it would set a lot of precedents. This is a very important observation. What makes it worrying is that if you consider the situation in a vacuum and apply game theory. Theoretically, the French leadership cannot slip up and they expect support from EU member states, a situation in which Pavel is released and there is a realization in the air that he has been treated unfairly - takes away power, power that visionary leaders will not let go, right or wrong - the precedent is likely to be this: 1. A guilty verdict…next, an exchange. 2. A more productive fight against the lack of backdoors and encryption keys to monitor for National Security and Intelligence. Like a show lynching, They may refuse to swap Durov for 5-10 years. That will show that the hope of a quick exchange with non-cooperative behavior is not to be expected. --- ## Post 55 by @asanyan — 2024-08-25T23:09:49Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > and he knew that as well. Do you have a source? I’ve seen conflicting info on whether he knew. It may not have been public --- ## Post 56 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T07:31:19Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > Since legality is determined by nations, a lot of nations can simply declare activities we think are legal to be illegal tomorrow. There are already constant [attacks against encryption](https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/02/eu-csam-scanning-council-proposal-flaws/) in the EU. Imagine if they declare encryption illegal, would they then be right to arrest Protonmail team? The main difference is that Proton does comply with lawful requests presented to a Swiss court. There is precedent of them doing so. The issue simply here is that Telegram has not, (at least enough in some cases) and we know that misbehavior/criminal activity on Telegram is rife. It’s not exactly a secret. This isn’t a “chilling effect” or any kind of “censorship” it’s simply what happens when you put a server on the internet and let bad things happen on it with the only protection being jurisdiction shopping. TLDR don’t run a service with openly criminal activity occurring, refuse to do anything about it, or service lawful warrants and you’ll be able to continue to do so. > [@anon49578468](#): > > Russia now arresting any developers working on software projects of the Western world? After all, they too must be in violation of some Russian law, or new laws can be passed to make sure they would be in violation. It’s not in any way the same thing, and you’d be pretty stupid to travel to anywhere Russia has influence (Russia, Belarus etc). As those countries are obviously dictatorships where anything goes if you have the right connections. --- ## Post 57 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-26T08:25:22Z > [@dngray](#): > > anything goes if you have the right connections. Unfortunately, this is true for almost all countries of the former USSR. It is not that they do not try to fight it, a vivid example is the countries that are trying to join the European Union and because of this they modernize their systems, however, the typical situation is that you have a conflict with someone, you are right, your opponent has the necessary friends or is somebody’s offspring - you are in trouble. In some Federations and Republics and Regions, by the way, this sort of thing is controlled better due to militant cultures and a thirst for revenge for evil done to a family member. But saying to dishonest officials or law enforcement officers that if they do evil they will be hunted down like game on the hunt is not the answer. Constant anxiety and the lack of strong potential protections in the form of laws and government officials has a pronounced effect on everything from birth rates (one instinctively wants to start a family in a safe place) to general trust and patriotism - which are the driving forces for business relationships and progressive government. --- ## Post 58 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-26T08:37:43Z > [@dngray](#): > > The main difference is that Proton does comply with lawful requests presented to a Swiss court. There is precedent of them doing so. I agree its a compliance issue. But my problem stems from the fact that its a compliance issue. Is telegram responsible for content on their platforms as a messenging service? If yes, can laws be made that make it mandatory for services like Signal to moderate content pre-encryption? If yes, then can Signal be held liable for not moderating/backdooring their encryption? Agree to disagree, but its a definite slippery slope. I for one do not like the idea that platforms can be held liable for actions of their users. What is preventing Switzerland from passing a regulation that says any person that connects to some piracy site is doing something illegal, so Proton VPN should push an update to help enable logging for anyone acccessing the site? State’s monopoly on violence and power ensures it has limitless authority, and if the population does not manage to curtail it when it is used against “adversaries”, its not long before it turns inward. > [@dngray](#): > > TLDR don’t run a service with openly criminal activity occurring, refuse to do anything about it, or service lawful warrants and you’ll be able to continue to do so Hope they don’t use this idea against Tor network, or other obviously “criminal” services. Otherwise “lawful” warrants can do a lot. There is a reason most companies do warrant canaries, since compliance is the easiest method used by law to force compromises. A relevant case is how Kim Dotcom of Megaupload was extradited for compliance, when he did not do anything explicitly wrong. I am tired of “think of the children” defense. > [@dngray](#): > > It’s not in any way the same thing, and you’d be pretty stupid to travel to anywhere Russia has influence (Russia, Belarus etc). Unfortunately not everyone can pack up and leave. A lot of Russian developers do not have a choice. I feel arguments of “don’t go there” always come from a place of privilege. --- ## Post 59 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T09:40:45Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > If yes, can laws be made that make it mandatory for services like Signal to moderate content pre-encryption? If yes, then can Signal be held liable for not moderating/backdooring their encryption? That’s the thing though, nowhere has actually passed a law dictating that specifically. It _is_ generally accepted that if you do possess data that would be helpful to the type of criminal investigation (considered internationally criminal by say interpol standards), you would at least try to comply. There is a reason other social media giants generally develop a “law enforcement portal” for these types of things. > [@anon49578468](#): > > What is preventing Switzerland from passing a regulation that says any person that connects to some piracy site is doing something illegal, so Proton VPN should push an update to help enable logging for anyone acccessing the site? It would take some time for a law like that to be passed in a democratic country, perhaps not very long in a country ruled by an authoritarian dictator however. > [@anon49578468](#): > > Hope they don’t use this idea against Tor network, or other obviously “criminal” services. The Tor network is not new, and the Tor Project isn’t expected to hand over data they never possessed. > [@anon49578468](#): > > is a reason most companies do warrant canaries Actually they don’t and they are basically worthless because any kind of national security order will include a gag order broad enough that counts as “tipping off”. > [@anon49578468](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/dngray/48/21_2.png) dngray: > > > It’s not in any way the same thing, and you’d be pretty stupid to travel to anywhere Russia has influence (Russia, Belarus etc). > > Unfortunately not everyone can pack up and leave. A lot of Russian developers do not have a choice. I feel arguments of “don’t go there” always come from a place of privilege. It was more from the perspective of being kidnapped and used in a prisoner swap. I would not feel that it is a non zero percent chance of that occuring if I was to travel there. Many despotic countries do just that and their courts are far from just when it comes to trumped up charges. --- ## Post 60 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-26T09:59:11Z > [@dngray](#): > > they are basically worthless Source? Pretty clear they are a great tool at least for US based companies, since first amendment allows them to defy forced speech. Have first hand experience with it, so would be grrat to know why they are useless? > [@dngray](#): > > The Tor network is not new, and the Tor Project isn’t expected to hand over data they never possessed You are getting too caught up in what they are trying to collect or not, instead of the crux of my point: The state is threatening “comply or die”, which is problematic. > [@dngray](#): > > It would take some time for a law like that to be passed in a democratic country, perhaps not very long in a country ruled by an authoritarian dictator however. Tell that to patriot act, nine eyes, and the gag orders you yourself cite, etc. General population is too engrossed in non-privacy related issues to actually serve as a effective deterrent. It needs people who care about privacy to actively protest against overreach like this. > [@dngray](#): > > There is a reason other social media giants generally develop a “law enforcement portal” for these types of things. Telegram HAS complied with orders. French police has problem with the fact tgat they haven’t complied as effectively as they wanted them to. This is a question of discretionary satisfaction and not enforcement. Lack of defense for legal overreach is how you end up with privacy criminalized. Soon there will be no freedoms left for threatening, and then maybe we will have won the war on crime and terrorism :slight_smile: > [@dngray](#): > > Many despotic countries do just that and their courts are far from just when it comes to trumped up charges As opposed to Western courts that are beacons of justice, and have never abused their authority to convict people detrimental to their surveillance state, right? --- ## Post 61 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T10:02:56Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/dngray/48/21_2.png) dngray: > > > they are basically worthless > > Source? Pretty clear they are a great tool at least for US based companies, since first amendment allows them to defy forced speech. Have first hand experience with it, so would be grrat to know why they are useless? You can see a lot of companies did away with them, they were all the rage a while ago but not so much now. > [@anon49578468](#): > > The state is threatening “comply or die”, which is problematic. But that’s not the issue is it. It’s “You have this data, and we would like it for XYZ reasons and judge ABC says we are allowed to have it, and you want to operate here right?”.. That’s not the same as a company which simply doesn’t have what is being asked for. The same applies to posession of all things, not just data. > [@anon49578468](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/dngray/48/21_2.png) dngray: > > > It would take some time for a law like that to be passed in a democratic country, perhaps not very long in a country ruled by an authoritarian dictator however. > > Tell that to patriot act, nine eyes, and the gag orders you yourself cite, etc. General population is too engrossed in non-privacy related issues to actually serve as a effective deterrent. It needs people who care about privacy to actively protest against overreach like this. Believe it or not eyes countries are still better for privacy than you might think, especially when using a E2EE. > [@anon49578468](#): > > Telegram HAS complied with orders. French police has problem with the fact tgat they haven’t complied as effectively as they wanted them to. This is a question of discretionary satisfaction and not enforcement. Lack of defense for legal overreach is how you end up with privacy criminalized Only time will tell what the exact details are and how accurately they have/have not complied. --- ## Post 62 by @jerm — 2024-08-26T10:06:51Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > Adding to the “secret chat” thing, it’s not even possible to use it on the desktop clients - _only_ mobile. [GitHub - UnigramDev/Unigram: Telegram for Windows](https://github.com/UnigramDev/Unigram) supports it but it is a third-party client. --- ## Post 63 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-26T10:07:24Z > [@dngray](#): > > You can see a lot of companies did away with them, they were all the rage a while ago but not so much now This is not a source on “they are useless” > [@dngray](#): > > That’s not the same as a company which simply doesn’t have what is being asked for. The same applies to posession of all things, not just data. Not the case always. For example, emails sent from non-ProtonMail accounts are encryoted on arrival, and Proton pinky promises they don’t retain it. Should they be jailed for not agreeing to moderate it pre-encryption? > [@dngray](#): > > Believe it or not eyes countries are still better for privacy than you might think, especially when using a E2EE Source? > [@dngray](#): > > Only time will tell what the exact details are and how accurately they have/have not complied. Maybe it will. Let’s see. I hope it was not as egregious an overreach as it seems. --- ## Post 64 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T10:11:27Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > Not the case always. For example, emails sent from non-ProtonMail accounts are encryoted on arrival, and Proton pinky promises they don’t retain it. Should they be jailed for not agreeing to moderate it pre-encryption? Unless they actually _do_ have that data they are fine. They also do tell you quite clearly to not do stuff that would get you into trouble, because they won’t have any choice but to comply with lawful Swiss intercept orders. “Swiss protection” generally ends where the offence is also a crime in Switzerland also. The threat model for Proton Mail has always been warrantless surveillance. > [@anon49578468](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/dngray/48/21_2.png) dngray: > > > Believe it or not eyes countries are still better for privacy than you might think, especially when using a E2EE > > Source? Typically eyes countries are not poor dictatorships that can be easily bribed. It’s kind of obvious. --- ## Post 65 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-26T10:17:40Z > [@dngray](#): > > Typically eyes countries are not poor dictatorships that can be easily bribed. It’s kind of obvious Still not a source. Replies are lacking credible proofs everywhere :frowning: And yes, they are rich countries that run Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, spy at the UN, jail whistleblowers, and bribe the above mentioned poor countries to spy for them :slight_smile: > [@dngray](#): > > Unless they actually _do_ have that data they are fine. They also do tell you quite clearly to not do stuff that would get you into trouble, because they won’t have any choice but to comply with lawful Swiss intercept orders. “Swiss protection” generally ends where the offence is also a crime in Switzerland also. The threat model for Proton Mail has always been warrantless surveillance. You keep mixing up the core issue. Its NOT what data they retain, its: We should not give even an inch of ground to activities that encroach on privacy services in the name of “compliance to protect the children” > [@anon49578468](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/dngray/48/21_2.png) dngray: > > > You can see a lot of companies did away with them, they were all the rage a while ago but not so much now > > This is not a source on “they are useless” Still not a source on useless canaries? --- ## Post 66 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T10:22:45Z > [@anon49578468](#): > > Still not a source. Replies are lacking credible proofs everywhere :frowning: You’re asking me to prove something which is a negative. For people that have been around they will simply _know_ that it is true. > [@anon49578468](#): > > Still not a source on useless canaries? There were a bunch of companies that had them. Even Reddit did at one point. Other companies like Silent Circle let them get out of date so they were useless. I think the only companies that persist with it nowadays are VPN companies with their marketing materials. I am gonna tell you to just do some research if you want to see more evidence of that. Here’s one for you [https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/warrant-canary-what-you-need-to-know-about-this-online-privacy-warning-sign/](https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/warrant-canary-what-you-need-to-know-about-this-online-privacy-warning-sign/) > Among the most famous critics of the warrant canary and its underlying proposition is Moxie Marlinspike, creator of encrypted messaging app Signal, who [said in 2014](https://web.archive.org/web/20141027143819/https://github.com/WhisperSystems/whispersystems.org/issues/34) “every lawyer we’ve spoken to has confirmed that this would not work.” > [@anon49578468](#): > > You keep mixing up the core issue. Its NOT what data they retain, its: We should not give even an inch of ground to activities that encroach on privacy services in the name of “compliance to protect the children” Well yes, because guess what, child related offenses are illegal in most parts of the world, therefore when courts in those countries make such orders they need to be complied with for the data that is possessed. --- ## Post 67 by @anon49578468 — 2024-08-26T10:34:10Z Agree to disagree I guess. Hopefully france has more credible “crimes” to hold him accountable for than “did not bend over backwards to comply”. Someone defies India/Russia/China and they are a hero, someone defies France/US/Germany and they are the villain. Always makes me mad to see otherwise smart people fall for the myth of “rule-based order”. Hopefully they are not LGBTQ+ or any other form of “deviant” in countries where it is illegal, otherwise privacy services WILL COMPLY and out them :slight_smile: , or be forced to stop operations there. --- ## Post 68 by @dngray — 2024-08-26T10:38:29Z There are rules in most societies. When there is some agreement on those things we see processes like [MLAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_legal_assistance_treaty). That is how it just is. --- ## Post 69 by @Tech-Trooper — 2024-08-26T12:06:43Z From the news circulating around, I have a feeling that Durov purposefully went to France since he knows he is on the list. The tricky question is why he did this. Edit: news sources [https://x.com/gerashchenko\_en/status/1827697800504881401?s=46](https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1827697800504881401?s=46) --- ## Post 70 by @jerm — 2024-08-26T13:49:36Z > **[Keep Pavel Durov LOCKED UP](https://blog.thc.org/keep-pavel-durov-locked-up)** > > Pavel was not arrested because he criticised Macron. He was arrested because he (allegedly) facilitates a wide range of crimes, including drug trafficking and ransomware groups. > He should have also been arrested for LYING to the community and for... > In 2022, we took a look at [Telegram’s API](https://core.telegram.org/). There is an undocumented API that allows an attacker (or the FSB) to DOWNLOAD any GROUP CHAT (where a bot is present). The attacker (or FSB) does not need to be in the group chat and does not need own the BOT. More so, the API smells like “lawful interception” all over the place. This article feels like it was written by schizso btw. --- ## Post 71 by @anon43985288 — 2024-08-26T19:13:03Z The charges have been made official. [https://decripto.org/en/arrest-of-pavel-durov-france-discloses-12-charges-he-faces-20-years-in-prison/](https://decripto.org/en/arrest-of-pavel-durov-france-discloses-12-charges-he-faces-20-years-in-prison/) --- ## Post 73 by @asanyan — 2024-08-26T20:34:40Z > [@dngray](#): > > The main difference is that Proton does comply with lawful requests presented to a Swiss court. There is precedent of them doing so. Proton operates in Switzerland. Does Telegram even have servers in France? If not, then his arrest makes absolutely no sense --- ## Post 74 by @anon43985288 — 2024-08-26T20:51:20Z Makes sense from the point of view that the app is serving French citizens and ought to comply with their laws. Not that I think any of those charges will hold up. --- ## Post 75 by @asanyan — 2024-08-26T21:00:25Z Question: If roles were reversed here and he had to comply to the UAE law and disclose user data as a french company (if Telegram was based in France), wouldn’t this in itself be a breach of GDPR? --- ## Post 76 by @dngray — 2024-08-27T01:08:22Z > [@jerm](#): > > This article feels like it was written by schizso btw. Not sure I agree. They also did a really good article some time ago about [Iran’s firewall](https://blog.thc.org/the-iran-firewall-a-preliminary-report). Also if you read the whole article you’ll see: > Note: Is it a bit harsh that we think Pavel should be locked up? Yes. Thanks for not just reading the headline. It’s meant to gain your attention, but otherwise raises some good points. > [@asanyan](#): > > If roles were reversed here and he had to comply to the UAE law and disclose user data as a french company (if Telegram was based in France), wouldn’t this in itself be a breach of GDPR? No, because GDPR does not supersede lawful interception laws obviously. It would entirely depend on what the UAE wanted, and if that thing was also a crime in France, whether or not they would be willing to assist. --- ## Post 77 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-27T08:16:55Z > [@anon43985288](#): > > Would Meridith go to jail for Signal? I don’t think so. Was re-reading some articles today, in light of current events and where things are happening. If you trust the words in this interview, Meredith Whittaker herself mentioned that she will be in Paris for next 6 months. She’s there now. Here are some excerpts and a [link](https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/24/signals-meredith-whittaker-on-the-telegram-security-clash-and-the-edge-lords-at-openai/) to the original paper itself. I want to emphasize at once that these are not consecutive terms from the dialog, I don’t want it to seem that these are specially composed parts, to form a certain narrative. What I wanted to underline: 1)Location and date of the event. 2)Specific mentions of the photographer. (As far as I understand it was Durov’s companion and she was released today, as was the bodyguard who accompanied them, Le Figaro wrote about it.) 3)The words “verdict”, “jury” and “my court” > **Date of publication** > **May 24, 2024** Press: > I sat down with the president of Signal at VivaTech in Paris to go over the wide range of serious, grown-up issues society is facing Meredith Whittaker: > It seems like Pavel might be too busy being followed by a professional photographer to get his facts right. I don’t know why he amplified that. I know he’s full of s— when it comes to his views or his claims about Signal. And we have all the receipts on our sides. So the jury is in. The verdict is clear. Press: > **You said that you’re going to be spending a lot of time in the EU. Why is that?** Meredith Whittaker: > I’ll be in Paris for the next six months. We’re focusing on our European market, our European connections. It’s a good time as a privacy-preserving app that will never back down from our principles to be very flexible, given the political situation in the U.S., and to understand our options. > A lot of times we see these disinformation campaigns targeted at vulnerable communities in order to force them onto a less secure option and then subject them to surveillance and social control and other forms of harm that come from that type of weaponized information asymmetry. So I was furious, I am furious, and I think it’s just incredibly reckless. > **Play your games, but don’t take them into my court.** Another aspect that I would like to discuss is, does this information actually take place? > According to the DLD, > > In 2005, Pavel completed his studies at the Faculty of Military Affairs of St. Petersburg State University, specializing in propaganda and psychological warfare. Could the fact of this education (if true) hint that the case may be more serious? Dual citizenship, espionage, disinformation? I understand that French Legion soldiers are present on the battlefield? Unfortunately my knowledge in this topic is limited, I would like to hear the opinion of more experienced people in these matters. --- ## Post 79 by @mika — 2024-08-27T13:18:31Z > [@Nima](#): > > it aims to assist the NATO powers in their war with Russia in Ukraine > [@Nima](#): > > far-right Ukrainian regime This is not a columnist or website whose viewpoint I would give any value. Ukraine is a sovereign country who got invaded by Russia. To the extent that a left-right paradigm applies here at all, Russia’s oligarchical Christian government is commonly understood as far to the right of Ukraine’s. --- ## Post 80 by @Valynor — 2024-08-27T14:28:14Z > **[Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s Arrest Linked to Sweeping Criminal Investigation](https://www.wired.com/story/telegram-pavel-durov-arrest-investigation-allegations/)** > > French authorities detained Durov to question him as part of a probe into a wide range of alleged violations—including money laundering and CSAM—but it remains unclear if he will face charges. Seems to me like an independent judiciary just doing their job tbh. --- ## Post 81 by @Nima — 2024-08-27T17:31:16Z The article complicitly doesn’t mention this, but the 12 charges stem from an initial investigation secretly launched by Ofmin, a French government office. The article also hides that all charges involve the argument that Durov is personally responsible for alleged criminal activity by others using the Telegram app, this concocted legal argument is unprecedented in terms of the arrest of executives of major social media and it will be used to advance attacks on freedom of information, privacy and other democratic rights. Also completely absent from the article is any mention of NATO governments and Ukraine’s repeated calls to ban the app. --- ## Post 82 by @camp — 2024-08-27T18:02:31Z Telegram is currently trending in all app stores, especially within France. CNN and every news channel is talking about encrypted messaging apps. CNN even said “normal text is not private at all, anyone and their brother can get your text messages.” While some of the technical details being published aren’t totally accurate, this is creating massive awareness for privacy tools everywhere. This case seems similar to the Silk road case. Although silk road was designed for illegal transactions, Telegram is designed for everyone but largely used by criminals everywhere. --- ## Post 83 by @Rasta — 2024-08-27T18:25:34Z So this is somehow helping telegram grow? Thats the opposite of the expected reaction. --- ## Post 84 by @camp — 2024-08-27T18:32:46Z Of course. Classic Barbra Streisand effect. [Streisand effect - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) After Durov’s arrest Telegram is number 2 in US social media downloads, first place in France, moved from 18th to 8th most popular app overall after the arrest. TV anchors are saying: “The telegram founder was arrested because he doesn’t care what you do on the platform, and police can’t get access to your data.” People go “Ohhh let me try it out” > **[Durov arrest boosts Telegram app downloads | TechCrunch](https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/26/durov-arrest-boosts-telegram-app-downloads/)** > > The arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov in France is starting to impact the app's traction and ranking. On Saturday, the founder was arrested --- ## Post 86 by @hakavlad — 2024-08-27T23:23:37Z It’s excellent article, not schizso. The author asks good questions. Also: Pavel Durov visited Russia 50 times from 2015 to 2021 [Павел Дуров приезжал в Россию более 50 раз с момента «изгнания» в 2014-м](https://storage.googleapis.com/istories/news/2024/08/27/pavel-durov-priezzhal-v-rossiyu-bolee-50-raz-s-momenta-izgnaniya-v-2014-m/index.html) en: [Pavel Durov Has Visited Russia More Than 50 Times Since His “Exile” in 2014](https://storage.googleapis.com/istories/en/news/2024/08/27/pavel-durov-has-visited-russia-more-than-50-times-since-his-exile-in-2014/index.html) --- ## Post 87 by @anon37939261 — 2024-08-28T18:51:20Z Ukraine is in no way a “far right regime” --- ## Post 88 by @Pragmatic — 2024-08-28T20:55:33Z According to the Wall Street Journal, France and the Emirate of Dubai hacked Pavel Durov’s iPhone before naturalising him > **[La France et l'émirat de Dubaï avaient piraté l'iPhone de Pavel Durov avant...](https://next.ink/brief_article/la-france-et-lemirat-de-dubai-avaient-pirate-liphone-de-pavel-durov-avant-de-le-naturaliser/)** > > Le Wall Street Journal révèle que lors d’un déjeuner qui n’avait jusqu’alors jamais été rendu public, Emmanuel Macron avait invité Pavel Durov, en 2018, à déménager Telegram à Paris. La messagerie venait, l’année précédente, d’installer son siège... --- ## Post 89 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-28T21:20:34Z He was released under judicial supervision with a bail bond of five million euros. He must appear twice a week before the police and he has been banned from leaving France. --- ## Post 90 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-28T21:22:21Z Pavel was charged with the following: conspiracy to administer an online platform to enable illegal transactions as part of an organized group; refusal to provide information requested by authorized authorities; distribution of hacking software, distribution of pornographic images of minors by an organized group, distribution of drugs, and complicity in fraud by an organized group; laundering of money derived from the actions of an organized criminal group; provision of cryptographic services aimed at ensuring confidentiality without mandatory declaration; illegal provision and importation of cryptographic equipment. --- ## Post 91 by @anon23293884 — 2024-08-28T21:24:08Z According to AFP and France Info, in addition to the Telegram case, Paris is investigating Durov for violence against his son, who was born in 2017. Russian media reported citing sources that the child abuse case is not related to Durov’s detention and he has not been questioned in the case. Irina Bolgar, the mother of Durov’s three children, filed a lawsuit against the businessman in Switzerland, accusing him of child abuse. The EU authorities are also investigating the case, believing that Telegram may have understated the number of users in the EU to avoid complying with regulations for large IT companies, the Financial Times reported. This appears to be the case with the Digital Service Act (DSA), the main law that regulates internet platforms in the EU --- ## Post 92 by @benm — 2024-08-30T16:19:14Z The key problem here is that any platform where users can upload content and interact has the potential to result in illegal content or interactions. There will always be controversy about what should and should not be considered illegal, but almost everyone agrees that at least a few things should be, like child pornography, credible personal violent threats, leaks of military secrets, etc. However, once you have the infrastructure in place to enforce those things, you can use it to enforce anything, including those things that are obviously politically partisan, the suppression of free speech, and so on. You can either use technology to make it virtually impossible to moderate anything at all, or you can leave the option open at which point now governments have access to abuse that right, which they will do if they can get away with it and it benefits them. --- ## Post 93 by @Regime6045 — 2024-09-05T16:03:15Z Overall I get the impression that France is now an authoritarian banana republic like Brazil or the UK and maybe soon (or already?) as bad as Russia ~~or China.~~ What I don’t understand is why Durov even went to France? > [@anon37939261](#): > > Ukraine is in no way a “far right regime” And even if it was that’s not a justification for Russia to invade. --- ## Post 94 by @Pragmatic — 2024-09-05T16:46:31Z France is getting dangerously close to a country like Russia or China, as I see on a daily basis. -Journalists and strikers have been bugged France almost passed a law banning the use of VPNs -A law was recently passed giving the right to block social networks on request in the event of a demonstration, and New Caledonia has not had access to Tiktok for 1 month already. -The proliferation of facial recognition cameras across the country -The government is working on a digital identity for every citizen -The media shitting themselves and not daring to talk about certain subjects and lacking neutrality, not to mention a very large number of censors on YT, X etc. --- ## Post 95 by @sha123 — 2024-09-05T17:28:04Z > [@Pragmatic](#): > > France is getting dangerously close to a country like Russia or China, as I see on a daily basis. > [@Regime6045](#): > > Overall I get the impression that France is now an authoritarian banana republic like Brazil or the UK and maybe soon (or already?) as bad as Russia or China. Bullshit. Tell this to the millions of people in labor camps in China and Russia. --- ## Post 96 by @Pragmatic — 2024-09-05T17:41:17Z I didn’t tell you about labour camps, but about mass surveillance, censorship, media manipulation, etc. Read over what I said before replying. --- ## Post 97 by @exaCORE — 2024-09-05T17:47:38Z It’s still not even a close comparison. For example. In france, people are free to criticize this decision while in China or Russia people are not free to criticize gov’t decisions. --- ## Post 98 by @sha123 — 2024-09-05T17:48:24Z Even just considering these aspects it’s nonsense. How many times have you been to China? --- ## Post 99 by @anon37939261 — 2024-09-05T18:05:11Z France and China are worlds apart, I really don’t get why you have the impression that France is as bad as China in terms of authoritarianism. --- ## Post 100 by @Pragmatic — 2024-09-05T18:12:18Z I made it clear in my comments that France, like Europe, was slowly but surely moving closer to Russia and China, slowly but surely, which is not the case at the moment. France (and other countries) wanted to pass a law banning VPNs, and some demonstrators found themselves on the S list (normally reserved for terrorists) for having used Signal, Whatsapp, Proton, Tor etc., because after all, why use these tools? The proliferation of facial recognition cameras in public spaces Europe has been trying to break encryption for some time now, with France pushing for a law for years. In France, for example, it’s forbidden to criticise Israel and its government, on pain of being prosecuted as an anti-Semite (even though there’s nothing to do with it), with social networks being monitored in this way I’ve never been to China, and neither have many of us, but how far does the state have to go to say that the limit has been reached? --- ## Post 101 by @Regime6045 — 2024-09-06T08:23:31Z Alright, I need to backpedal a bit. France is obviously not comparable with China. Yet. And hopefully it never will be like China. But the point is, it’s going in that direction. It’s becoming more and more authoritarian and freedoms are getting eroded in little slices. By the way: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” - Art. 35 of the PRC constitution. Of course, in China, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences. So you best think twice if your opinion could be divisive or harmful or hateful or misinformation. My point is: there’s nothing stopping a country like France from becoming like China in a couple of decades. Just because we think of it as “free” now and just because it has some laws guaranteeing civil liberties doesn’t mean it can’t change in the future. The example of Hong Kong shows how quickly a strong government can crack down and remove liberties, By the way I’ve been to China multiple times for several months each and it’s actually a very nice country to live in. You just need to not talk about politics and make sure you have a working VPN before you arrive. Maybe the same will be true for France (or the UK or Germany) in 20 years, who knows. --- ## Post 102 by @sha123 — 2024-09-06T11:26:36Z > [@Regime6045](#): > > You just need to not talk about politics and make sure you have a working VPN before you arrive. Only using CNC-approved VPNs are legal for private use and that you can go to jail for using others. While this is only enforced occasionally, it’s quite a risk to take. These approved VPNs enforce blocking of China-critical services and are obligated to log user data. There is nothing to gain in terms of privacy or freedom from using these VPNs. > [@Regime6045](#): > > The example of Hong Kong shows how quickly a strong government can crack down and remove liberties, The case of Hong Kong has zero similarity with France. In France you don’t have a neighbor state who is overwhelmingly powerful to fully take control within a few weeks over your country and without other states even thinking about to intervene. > [@Regime6045](#): > > Of course, in China, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences. There is no freedom of speech in China. Stop spreading propaganda. --- ## Post 103 by @Regime6045 — 2024-09-06T12:13:00Z > [@sha123](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/regime6045/48/8_2.png) Regime6045: > > > Of course, in China, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences. > > There is no freedom of speech in China. Stop spreading propaganda. You misunderstood. Obviously there’s no freedom of speech in China. Yet, their constitution says there is. The conclusion is that theoretically having freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can actually speak freely if there’s various exceptions to it or if the government just decides to persecute you anyway. That’s the slippery slope I see in the West: more and more exceptions to free speech, and the arrest of Pavel Durov is an example for that because clearly the issue they have is that Telegram is not “moderated” enough, rather than that they forgot to file some declaration about cryptography. “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences” is a sentence that nobody should say unironically because it’s the exact logic that China uses. --- ## Post 104 by @anon80779245 — 2024-09-07T08:54:33Z I strongly disagree. Freedom of speech of course mean you are _free_ to _speak_ about _anything_ without consequences Free definition ![Screenshot_20240907-105343](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/9/97c2ca8f5b732870005ea93ef9c7adf9e1c2825c.png) Saying there is freedom of x just because you technically can do something doesn’t make sense. You are free to kill someone, but you’ll go to jail - so there is no “freedom of murder”. --- ## Post 105 by @jerm — 2024-09-08T21:04:12Z ![image](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/a/a0b788b68011416d30a1085bdd432ee2f2562e3c.jpeg) Telegram Quietly Updates FAQ Page, removing: “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.” Proof: [Before](https://web.archive.org/web/20240905033822/https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-telegram-how-do-i-take-it-down) vs [after](https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-telegram-how-do-i-take-it-down). EDIT: it was actually moved to other section of FAQ, previously it was written twice in the FAQ. ![image](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/a/ab50ebcc20028746507341bc32df99590fe8da1a.jpeg) --- ## Post 106 by @anon48875053 — 2024-09-09T05:01:56Z Better than nothing, I would still like to see them adding proper E2EE so they can put that paragraph back in place. --- ## Post 107 by @Regime6045 — 2024-09-09T09:21:10Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Freedom of speech of course mean you are _free_ to _speak_ about _anything_ without consequences. (…) Saying there is freedom of x just because you technically can do something doesn’t make sense. You are free to kill someone, but you’ll go to jail - so there is no “freedom of murder”. I 100% agree with you, I think we’re just having a misunderstanding --- ## Post 108 by @mika — 2024-09-09T13:18:35Z It’s also worth noting that freedom of speech refers to freedom from legal / government consequences. The past 10 years have seen a surge in people complaining about the _social_ consequences of their speech. There has never been a single society in all of human history that didn’t have social consequences for what people say or do. --- ## Post 109 by @Ari_Yaro — 2024-09-09T16:05:04Z They likely will not do that. Their entire business model relies on essentially holding that data hostage while lulling a massive userbase into a false sense of security, because most abusers of the service cannot be prosecuted and banned en masse, because there’s simply too many of them. This is why Telegram stretches out legal cases but eventually agrees to cooperate with authorities - it’s a neat little game of leverage. And implementing E2EE by default would lose them that leverage. Not to mention that their Private Chat E2EE isn’t even that good. MTProto still leaks a lot of metadata. So no, they likely won’t do it, and if they will, be highly suspicious and on the look for a cop-out. --- ## Post 110 by @jerm — 2024-09-10T11:34:15Z Looks like the FAQ news was a bit misinfo, I updated the post. > [@Telegram CEO Pavel Durov arrested in France](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-arrested-at-french-airport/20301/105): > > [image] Telegram Quietly Updates FAQ Page, removing: “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.” Proof: [Before](https://web.archive.org/web/20240905033822/https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-telegram-how-do-i-take-it-down) vs [after](https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-telegram-how-do-i-take-it-down). EDIT: it was actually moved to other section of FAQ, previously it was written twice in the FAQ. [image] but it is technically true, you can’t make group chats E2EE on Telegram, so they can read all of your group chats regardless whether they were private or public. --- ## Post 111 by @anon80779245 — 2024-09-10T22:01:47Z > [@mika](#): > > The past 10 years have seen a surge in people complaining about the _social_ consequences of their speech. There has never been a single society in all of human history that didn’t have social consequences for what people say or do. That’s where the American and European definition of Free Speech conflict. In Europe, lot of laws to protect you from repercussion of your speech from workplace. Your boss can’t fire you for your opinions. I also think that’s where privacy comes into place. Protect yourself from others by keeping your opinion private, or limited to controlled channels. --- ## Post 112 by @anon80779245 — 2024-09-10T22:02:53Z > [@Ari_Yaro](#): > > They likely will not do that. Their entire business model relies on essentially holding that data hostage while lulling a massive userbase into a false sense of security, because most abusers of the service cannot be prosecuted and banned en masse, because there’s simply too many of them. > > This is why Telegram stretches out legal cases but eventually agrees to cooperate with authorities - it’s a neat little game of leverage. And implementing E2EE by default would lose them that leverage. Leverage ? I will say it’s a burden.