111–120 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe they don't need to compete on talent simply because they're paid well by Durov? Or because they're staffed by the Kremlin!
Any source on that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that this comment is down-voted. I think it's worth noting that Telegram LLC—as organisation itself—is anomalous to the point where it's consistent with Russian "cover" doctrine. For example, you wouldn't find ex-Telegram employees on Linkedin, Telegram itself seemingly doesn't invite people for interviews, there's no ex-Telegram people in the industry. Their open source software is developed using fake-u…
It's hilarious that what you impute to them is, essentially, that they don't have enough bullshit: useless management that hires endless hordes of bootcamp graduates for no reason (then lays them off when cheap money are over), no BS conferences without any substance, no hires of overpriced American "talent" when they have a tremendous pool of much much much more affordable and no less qualified people from CIS count…
You cannot be serious. A service with a billion users and Telegram’s feature-richness and complexity cannot be maintained by a few people. If it’s true that there are no Telegram alums on LinkedIn, etc., that is deeply suspicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Platforms like Signal can get away with this because they are properly E2E encrypted, and cannot identify illegal content. Signal isn't magically protected by proper E2E encryption. When the time comes to take them down legally, all that's needed is evidence from end users phones demonstrating illegal activities occurring over Signal. But - for now - Signal seems to have better friends and or be upsetting less auth…
>To me it's pretty clear reason why they've gone after Telegram is the Channels and Groups. Seen from a certain perspective Telegram channels are an alternative to Reddit, and have been popular medium during COVID and the Ukraine war for "alternative news". By now Reddit is properly controlled and subdued but Telegram isn't. This is full on speculation. Right now the reality is you can buy underage people, drugs and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Telegram is used by Russia, terror groups, and so on. As well as a lot of people in CIS countries (including Ukraine), people fed up with Meta and probably 95% of Android custom ROM communities (wild guess, do not quote me on that). Not to mention platforms like, for example, Discord. Also used in Russia. Also probably used by terror groups. But it's okay because we are supposed to like "our" platform. >It's always…
While Discord Inc. is based in San Francisco, Tencent (China) owns Discord, most likely at a majority stake, considering how they have been funding the devs before they even had the idea for it. Also one big difference might be that Discord is part of the Deep Web (requiring an account and an invitation to its chatrooms to even see what is going on there), while Telegram seems to be mostly on the Open Web, even provi…
Good to know it's yet another one in the never-ending Tencent spectrum.
>Telegram seems to be mostly on the Open Web, even providing an interface to be crawled ?
Theoretically yes, but in practice I've found it only works good with big (as in, popular - with a lot of members) channels, and even then history is wonky and you can't grab files without an account. Pictures do work fine, videos don't AFAIR.
Some interesting facts: - Durov is, according to him, living in exile outside of Russia since 2014 - due to Russian gov persecution. - Since his "exile" - he has travelled 50-60 times to Russia https://www.reddit.com/r/Telegram/comments/1f2pgg3/pavel_dur... - Most Russian billionaires that live in exile and are persecuted by the RU gov fall from windows (or something tall) quite often. Durov has been living lavishly…
Interesting that this comment is down-voted. I think it's worth noting that Telegram LLC—as organisation itself—is anomalous to the point where it's consistent with Russian "cover" doctrine. For example, you wouldn't find ex-Telegram employees on Linkedin, Telegram itself seemingly doesn't invite people for interviews, there's no ex-Telegram people in the industry. Their open source software is developed using fake-u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has a sarcastic tone but it is one of the best newspaper for the sources. Other newspapers regularly cite them.
The question is whether that statement is a joke or not (they do both).
It's satirical in the sense that it takes a mocking tone. It doesn't do parody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make things even stranger, Durov was apparently invited to lunch by Macron. Instead of a presidential welcome, he was arrested on arrival. Source: https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1828529272539304278
I find it deeply uncomfortable that the HN contingent is rushing to defend the French government on this matter. The European Union has been angling for more comprehensive access to messaging platforms with proposal after proposal. Everyone here loves to sing the praises of the EU but broad regulatory powers is not a clear cut value proposition: European governments and those governed have a long history of oppressio…
I find it deeply uncomfortable that the HN contingent is rushing to defend Telegram like if it was an open attack of free speach and not justified by Telegram completes lack of cooperation in crime investigations.
>If Telegram really was not answering enforcement requests in a timely manner, then France should have moved against the company either through a direct ban on the app itself or other court action. Putting its CEO in prison sends a message.
Yes, it sends the message that executives are actually responsible for what their company does. That's a good message.
There seems to be a lot of arguments citing that "$otherPlatform should be held liable for the same things!" The main takeaway here is that Durov is not being arrested strictly because his platform contains illegal material. He is being arrested because (allegedly) - he is aware of the illegal material, and - he refuses to cooperate with law enforcement to remove that material. So the French authorities are charging…
> Platforms like Signal can get away with this because they are properly E2E encrypted, and cannot identify illegal content. Signal isn't magically protected by proper E2E encryption. When the time comes to take them down legally, all that's needed is evidence from end users phones demonstrating illegal activities occurring over Signal. But - for now - Signal seems to have better friends and or be upsetting less auth…
No, that's non sense. It is perfectly legal to operate a E2E encrypted platform in the EU.
What would be illegal is for Signal to refuse to answer when asked for information by the justice system. As long as they are cooperative and provide what they can - even if it's not much - everything is alright.
If Durov is liable for crimes committed on his platform how far away are we from making phone companies and ISPs liable for crimes committed using their services? This is a very slippery slope. I don't see a problem with requiring a company to cooperate with a court order to release data. However if a company does not have this data (because it's encrypted) it should not be liable or be required to collect such data.
That's the deal: ISPs aren't responsible for hosting child abuse content, phishing sites, crime ring messaging infrastructure, or pirated content, as long as they work with the relevant authorities to take such content down or hand over relevant evidence. ISPs hand over phone records and anything else they have on people. They set wiretaps, they can triangulate users, you name it. When the government asks Telegram fo…
The whole issue is that they don't. Telegram doesn't provide information when asked to by law inforcement. That's literally the reason Durov is being charged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. So they're fairly confident about most of it, them. I wonder about this: «Fourniture d'un moyen de cryptologie n'assurant pas exclusivement des fonctions d'authentification ou de contrôle d'intégrité sans déclaration préalable,» Do you happen to know what making that declaration involves?
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, just did some law courses in a couple of countries, including France. From the law 2004-575 [1], section 1, article 30: > I. - L'utilisation des moyens de cryptologie est libre. > II. - La fourniture, le transfert depuis ou vers un Etat membre de la Communauté européenne, l'importation et l'exportation des moyens de cryptologie assurant exclusivement des fonctions d'authentification ou de co…
Only exports have to be approved. Imports are solely subjected to a declaration (which involves handing over the source code).
And yes, the point is to get their hands on the source code of encryption protocoles to give it to their information agencies. Welcome to the real world.
> So, if I'm reading this correctly, if Telegram was end to end encrypted, they wouldn't have had to declare to the PM.
You are not reading this correctly. Providing E2E chats is giving access to the encryption functionality to end users.