Arrest of Pavel Durov, Telegram CEO, charges of terrorism, fraud, child porn

Post by kyleee » Sun, Aug 25, 2024, 5:10 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #318

marcinzm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those providers cooperate with authorities and moderate their content to a fairly large degree?

This distinction gets lost in these discussions all of the time. A company that makes an effort to comply with laws is in a completely different category than a company that makes the fact that they’ll look the other way one of their core selling points. Years ago there was a case where someone built a business out of making hidden compartments in cars. He did an amazing job of making James Bond style hidden compartm…

Post by Svoka » Sun, Aug 25, 2024, 5:10 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #246

I can only once again quote this section of Telegram's privacy policy verbatim: > 8.3. Law Enforcement Authorities > If Telegram receives a court order that confirms you're a terror suspect, we may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities. So far, this has never happened. When it does, we will include it in a semiannual transparency report published at: https://t.me/transparency . (from h…

Post by DandyDev » Sun, Aug 25, 2024, 5:11 PM UTC

unsupp0rted wrote: post #130

devman0 wrote: post #99

A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less. The comparisons to other providers is off base because either other providers are cooperating more when they possess actionable, unencrypted information and taking s…

> Nothing more, nothing less. A lot more and a lot less than that. Arresting this CEO in France is largely a political decision, not a politically neutral enforcement action against the Telegram platform. They don’t perform the same enforcement against other entities they could go after.

Post by dotancohen » Sun, Aug 25, 2024, 5:11 PM UTC

thomassmith65 wrote: post #159

mazambazz wrote: post #29

This seems like the Kim Dotcom situation again. Why are these service providers being punished for what their users do? Specifically, these service providers? Because Google, Discord, Reddit, etc. all contain some amount of CSAM (and other illegal content), yet I don't see Pichai, Citron, or Huffman getting indicted for anything. Hell, then there's the actual infrastructure providers too. This seems like a slippery s…

Why are these service providers being punished for what their users do [...] maybe I'm just being naive? In this case, the comment does strike me as naive. Back in the 1990s the tech community convinced itself (myself included) that Napster had zero ethical responsibility for the mass piracy it enabled. In reality, law in a society is supposed to serve that society. The tech community talked itself into believing tha…

Post by ianburrell » Sun, Aug 25, 2024, 5:11 PM UTC

c0mbonat0r wrote: post #267

jsheard wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram is for the most part not end-to-end encrypted, one to one chats can be but aren't by default, and groups/channels are never E2EE. That means Telegram is privy to a large amount of the criminal activity happening on their platform but allegedly chooses to turn a blind eye to it, unlike Signal or WhatsApp, who can't see what their users are doing by design. Not to say that deliberately making yourself blind to…

if its not not end-to-end encrypted, what does that mean? whats the method that govts access these messages?