13 ms·

Not clear right now if France thinks he was actively complicit with the four horsemen listed, or if just the act of running Telegram makes him complicit in thei

Not clear right now if France thinks he was actively complicit with the four horsemen listed, or if just the act of running Telegram makes him complicit in their eyes, or something in the middle, e.g. they asked for help and Telegram turned them down. This will be an interesting case to watch -- I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort -- but generally my understanding is that harassment on border entry has been the order of the day, rather than arrests.

chucke1992 2y ago
> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally implementing a regulation that will allow to "circumvent end-to-end encryption to address child sexual abuse material". I believe it failed to pass recently, but they will try again - and nothing stops countries to implement it independently. I think France is the one who was pushing for that in the first place.
- dijit 2y ago
  A handful of EU MEPs keep pushing backdoored encryption and it keeps getting veto’d. There are two legistive bodies in the EU, one is only allowed to propose law, the other is only allowed to vote on it. Lots of braindead laws get put to a vote, theres no requirement that they get through. I understand that raising the alarm is helpful, but it would be helpful if people took a second to understand how the EU works, the politicians involved and how their motions are perceived by the rest of parliament.
  - arlort 2y ago
    3 actually, (the second body you described can be categorised as bicameral) Which would be pedantry if it weren't that one of the two chambers is much more in line with the former
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Chat Control isn't pushed by a "handful of EU MEPs", but the European Commission. Notably, it can be agreed upon in the EC using qualified majority, unilateral veto doesn't apply. The last time they tried (in June), the qualified majority wasn't reached, but the difference was slim.
- T-A 2y ago
  You might be surprised to learn who's doing the pushing: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down-the-law-on-encryption/ https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down... https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have-more-say-in-the-eu-policy-making-process-says-swedish-government/ https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have...
  - attendant3446 2y ago
    No wonder it's Swedish, a country with zero privacy
  - a1o 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
  - I_am_uncreative 2y ago
    I'm not. The Swedish government is a lot like California's: it's a lot less progressive than it pretends to be.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      It's not progressive. It's protectionist. The people they're protecting carry a lot of guilt, and so really like the "progressive" label, it's puts a really nice spin on their particular version of graft and corruption.
      - ardaoweo 2y ago
        Yep. If the Swedish government really cared about children, they would do something to stop the massive underage gang violence problem the country has. 12 year olds being used as hitmen for drug gangs is not normal, yet that's the reality.
        okr 2y ago
        gangs of 12 year old roaming the swedish streets? you sure, it's not monty python playing in your head?
- timeon 2y ago
  > EU is literally implementing a regulation Does it?
  - exceptione 2y ago
    Nope. There was a proposal pushed by corporate lobby groups that got shot down. The EU usually takes 3 steps forward, 1 to 2 steps backwards.
- vessenes 2y ago
  I think you read my clumsy sentence backwards. They absolutely want to get in the middle of messaging, all of them. This is behind many of the calls for E2E interop as well -- all the proposals I'm aware of call for termination somewhere in the middle; you can imagine who'd like to be at that termination middle point. This is why Apple will not "move over" to RCS, ever, as a first class transport -- it's fundamentally no more secure than OTA plaintext to existing persistent threat actors.
  - sgc 2y ago
    So just give me an apple messaging client on my non-apple devices. It is insanely, practically criminally, anti-social to lock your messaging system into your devices alone. It's like the Joker is running the business decisions over there. Who cares, let's just watch the world burn.
    - op00to 2y ago
      Asking cause I don’t know - can you provide iOS level iMessage encryption safely on Android when you don’t control the hardware?
      - cherryteastain 2y ago
        Safety wise, Signal (or PGP email) on GrapheneOS is probably as good as it gets since it's all audited free open source code.
        throwaway48540 2y ago
        I didn't know Signal app had access to a secure enclave chip.
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        That is not the definition of secure.
- a0123 2y ago
  To be clear, the legislation in France and in the EU that is most likely behind this arrest is that companies have to at least try to do some moderation. There is an understanding that not everything can be moderated (obviously, the entire Internet would be banned otherwise) but there has to be a genuine attempt. Which every company does more or less. The fact that Telegram doesn't reach this extremely low, very low bar is quite something.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    What keeps amazing me is that this is supposed to make children's lives better, by helping social services. Of course, such legislation only has any chance in hell of improving lives if the standard of living for children, the education, the ... IN social services is good. It is very easy to see this WILL put more children into such a situation, and that's about the only thing such legislation will definitely do. It is completely absurd to think this is going to end drugs, abuse or whatever else they're looking for. Is that the case? Is it the case that the standard of living, education, ... in social services is good? No. Not at all. There's constant scandals and if a child that gets into a social services institution makes it into university, just one, any given year, that's national news. Prostitution in social services is common, drugs and crime are everywhere. It seems there is A LOT more work to be done on the other side of social services first. They seem to perform VERY badly once they actually catch someone. So why do this? Because it isn't to help children. At the very best they see this as a cheap way to look like they're improving social services.
    - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
      They're building the penthouse suite with all the luxuries you could imagine, but the foundation is rotting away and, if anything, becoming more ignored rather than increasingly important. It lays bare that their motivation is blanket surveillance for their own political ends and nothing to do with protecting children in the slightest. Social Services are one of the most consistently underfunded and under-resources arms of government. Australia has recently had to "increase the bar" at which mandatory reporting is required because the resources don't exist to even consider investigation of cases where the child's life isn't in immediate danger. It's gross, but it seems politics around the world has found it's shared water level, and that level is happy with exploiting exploited children.
- loceng 2y ago
  Using this as a means to manufacture consent to implement-enforce such systems, and then what regulation will be used to counter the tyrannical takeover of these systems - who may be the most vile child predators seeking control-power to be able to do what they want - to pillage, rape, and murder as they please?
- namaria 2y ago
  > literally implementing > it failed to pass recently These two sentences cannot be both true
- LightBug1 2y ago
  In the UK, I have a stormtrooper standing behind me in my bedroom as I type this. He just asked me to explain the context of the message I'm writing to you now.
- tome 2y ago
  Perhaps you got thrown by the double negative? > I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort means > I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
  - andrewshadura 2y ago
    No, it doesn't?
    - tome 2y ago
      Thanks, yes, I should have said > I believe no western nation wants any messaging to be non-locally-backdoored
      - tome 2y ago
        Actually, this seems to be the clearest way of getting rid of negatives: > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors
        froggit 2y ago
        > > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors != >> I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
        tome 2y ago
        Correct. andrewshadura pointed that out above, too. The former is equivalent to the original formulation that I was trying to simplify.
chad1n 2y ago
EU has been complaining about Telegram's end-to-end encryption for a long time and they want to implement some regulations to basically add backdoors into all messaging apps. I don't really see how this case will go on since at least private chats are encrypted so Telegram (theoretically at least) can't see the contents.
- EduardoBautista 2y ago
  Are they going to arrest Zuckerberg and Tim Cook next for the encryption in WhatsApp and iMessage?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - crote 2y ago
    What makes you believe those do not have backdoors for Western powers?
  - verisimi 2y ago
    Perhaps they already have backdoors, but don't tell everyone.
  - rubymamis 2y ago
    Maybe not, if they already got backdoors?
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      If Apple hypothetically agreed to iMessage backdoors, why would you trust the Telegram app updates served up by Apple's app store? Western government's can pretty much hack into any device they want - the only reason for backdooring messaging apps would be for dragnet surveillance, and I don't see big tech having the appetite for the bad publicity and lawsuits that will result when that inevitably becomes public
      - 2y ago
gtvwill 2y ago
But here's the thing. If your app is known to be uses heavily by criminals ranging from Pedo's to drug dealers. You are liable. You run a carrier service. Much like the owner of omegle found out, yes you do have a duty of care. You can't just provide a service that knowingly provides a platform to criminal activity and do jack shit. You live in fairytale land if you think you can.
- codedokode 2y ago
  What do you mean by "knowingly providing a service to a criminal"? Is Elon Mask then guilty for providing access to Twitter for Trump?
  - gtvwill 2y ago
    Well much like the owner of omegle found out you can't provide platforms for criminal activities and make no effort to curb it. It only takes a 30 second google before you find telegram rooms offering all kinds of illegal stuff. You don't find that on Twitter. Twitter is atleast mildly moderated. Telegram could have moderation built in to catch illegal activities but it chooses to do nothing. See the difference?
    - chad1n 2y ago
      Telegram is end-to-end encrypted in private chats, the Telegram team doesn't even know what people are discussing. Same should happen with Whatsapp or Signal. Should Whatsapp or Signal be accountable for what terrorists talk in private?
      - gtvwill 2y ago
        App can have internal keyword check that could open backdoor to law enforcement when certain terms are said. *fbi enters the conversation* probably won't be in your chat log anytime soon but you can't argue telegram, signal and whatsapp can't do it. Whatsapp being fbs darling almost certainly does already and signal servers anti spam folder is smelling mighty like a five eyes backdoor. Tbh given both those apps company's have dealings with gov in aus I'm gonna say signals probably already got a backdoor into em. If you don't think so you don't know aus law well enough or who signals are. Also the owners of the apps aren't liable for the content of the conversations. Their liable for providing a platform for the conversation to take place and for not knowingly taking available efforts to curb criminal activity on that platfor/service. It's like hey I'm gonna rent you a store house to hide all your illegal drugs in Mr gang member. I'm not doing the hiding or anything but I'm assisting the activity by providing the store house. I could make efforts to curb such activity like you know doing a rental inspection once every six months but I choose not to and turn a blind eye. Am I assisting a crime or am I completely innocent? Now repeat this but telegram is the store house.
mandmandam 2y ago
[flagged]
mlindner 2y ago
I find it highly amusing that people on here actually think secure messaging platforms are "locally backdoored". Despite what the article says, Telegram is not even a nominally end-to-end encrypted platform. You need to jump through hoops to get end-to-end encryption on the platform.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sansii 2y ago
  "You need to jump through hoops to get end-to-end encryption on the platform." What do you mean by this?
  - Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago
    It's opt in
  - tillulen 2y ago
    On Telegram, even private messages are not end-to-end encrypted by default. The so-called secret chats are end-to-end encrypted but are a major pain to use.
    - akikoo 2y ago
      > but are a major pain to use It's a major pain for gen z
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ein0p 2y ago
The main problem with Telegram is it’s not subject to Western surveillance and censorship. Best I can tell, it’s also not subject to Eastern surveillance and censorship which is why it was (unsuccessfully) banned in Russia in 2018. As of right now, this is one of the few places where you can find true information about WW3 which is currently ongoing in Ukraine. This is true of all sides of the conflict: the only truly uncensored source right now is Telegram, whether you’re in Ukraine, in Russia or in the west. People investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the war do not like this lack of control over the narrative. That is why Durov is in jail.
- Fnoord 2y ago
  > [..] That is why Durov is in jail. Speculative. We don't know why he is in jail. Maybe his lawyers know why, maybe not. Maybe the prosecutor knows, maybe not. We don't know if there's a case. There's hardly anything we do know. My take is he doesn't reply to LE requests related to CSAM. That is one of the few things we (as in: our governments) don't like anywhere in the world, and Telegram is known to respond slowly to [such] requests. But I won't pretend I know for sure. Cause either way, it is a neat honeypot compared to technically better protocols.
- croes 2y ago
  And how to you find the true uncensored information between all the propaganda on telegram?
  - mediumsmart 2y ago
    That’s easy. You pick a channel that agrees with your general view of your world.
    - croes 2y ago
      So echo chambers
  - ein0p 2y ago
    You look at both sides and try to get some nuggets of truth out of that mountain of bullshit by checking what doesn’t line up. Thing is, though, if you only look at the mainstream media, you can’t even figure out what’s bullshit - the conflicting narratives are suppressed so well that editors of Pravda would blush.
thisislife2 2y ago
> According to the French authorities, Durov, who is estimated to be worth €13.9 billion by Forbes, is being charged as an accomplice to crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, terrorism and crimes against children over Telegram’s alleged “lack of moderation and cooperation with law enforcement”, as well for Telegram’s use of disposable numbers, and for allowing cryptocurrency transfers that cannot be monitored by the authorities. - https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/08/25/russian-billionaire-telegram-founder-pavel-durov-arrested-in-paris-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/08/25/russian-billiona...
- t0bia_s 2y ago
  Basically DSA to eliminate political opponents and potential danger for establishment.
  - thisislife2 2y ago
    Seems more a NATO intelligence operation - apparently, there are rumours that he met recently Putin, and had extensive discussions with Kremlin officials - https://archive.is/8sdYQ https://archive.is/8sdYQ . The investigation against him is pretty broad according to the charges laid against him by the French authorities - https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-08-26%20-%20CP%20TELEGRAM%20.pdf https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files... (PDF, english translation from page 3).

chucke1992 2y ago

> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally implementing a regulation that will allow to "circumvent end-to-end encryption to address child sexual abuse material". I believe it failed to pass recently, but they will try again - and nothing stops countries to implement it independently. I think France is the one who was pushing for that in the first place.

dijit 2y ago
A handful of EU MEPs keep pushing backdoored encryption and it keeps getting veto’d. There are two legistive bodies in the EU, one is only allowed to propose law, the other is only allowed to vote on it. Lots of braindead laws get put to a vote, theres no requirement that they get through. I understand that raising the alarm is helpful, but it would be helpful if people took a second to understand how the EU works, the politicians involved and how their motions are perceived by the rest of parliament.
- arlort 2y ago
  3 actually, (the second body you described can be categorised as bicameral) Which would be pedantry if it weren't that one of the two chambers is much more in line with the former
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Chat Control isn't pushed by a "handful of EU MEPs", but the European Commission. Notably, it can be agreed upon in the EC using qualified majority, unilateral veto doesn't apply. The last time they tried (in June), the qualified majority wasn't reached, but the difference was slim.
T-A 2y ago
You might be surprised to learn who's doing the pushing: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down-the-law-on-encryption/ https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down... https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have-more-say-in-the-eu-policy-making-process-says-swedish-government/ https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have...
- attendant3446 2y ago
  No wonder it's Swedish, a country with zero privacy
- a1o 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  I'm not. The Swedish government is a lot like California's: it's a lot less progressive than it pretends to be.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    It's not progressive. It's protectionist. The people they're protecting carry a lot of guilt, and so really like the "progressive" label, it's puts a really nice spin on their particular version of graft and corruption.
    - ardaoweo 2y ago
      Yep. If the Swedish government really cared about children, they would do something to stop the massive underage gang violence problem the country has. 12 year olds being used as hitmen for drug gangs is not normal, yet that's the reality.
      - okr 2y ago
        gangs of 12 year old roaming the swedish streets? you sure, it's not monty python playing in your head?
timeon 2y ago
> EU is literally implementing a regulation Does it?
- exceptione 2y ago
  Nope. There was a proposal pushed by corporate lobby groups that got shot down. The EU usually takes 3 steps forward, 1 to 2 steps backwards.
vessenes 2y ago
I think you read my clumsy sentence backwards. They absolutely want to get in the middle of messaging, all of them. This is behind many of the calls for E2E interop as well -- all the proposals I'm aware of call for termination somewhere in the middle; you can imagine who'd like to be at that termination middle point. This is why Apple will not "move over" to RCS, ever, as a first class transport -- it's fundamentally no more secure than OTA plaintext to existing persistent threat actors.
- sgc 2y ago
  So just give me an apple messaging client on my non-apple devices. It is insanely, practically criminally, anti-social to lock your messaging system into your devices alone. It's like the Joker is running the business decisions over there. Who cares, let's just watch the world burn.
  - op00to 2y ago
    Asking cause I don’t know - can you provide iOS level iMessage encryption safely on Android when you don’t control the hardware?
    - cherryteastain 2y ago
      Safety wise, Signal (or PGP email) on GrapheneOS is probably as good as it gets since it's all audited free open source code.
      - throwaway48540 2y ago
        I didn't know Signal app had access to a secure enclave chip.
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        That is not the definition of secure.
a0123 2y ago
To be clear, the legislation in France and in the EU that is most likely behind this arrest is that companies have to at least try to do some moderation. There is an understanding that not everything can be moderated (obviously, the entire Internet would be banned otherwise) but there has to be a genuine attempt. Which every company does more or less. The fact that Telegram doesn't reach this extremely low, very low bar is quite something.
- spwa4 2y ago
  What keeps amazing me is that this is supposed to make children's lives better, by helping social services. Of course, such legislation only has any chance in hell of improving lives if the standard of living for children, the education, the ... IN social services is good. It is very easy to see this WILL put more children into such a situation, and that's about the only thing such legislation will definitely do. It is completely absurd to think this is going to end drugs, abuse or whatever else they're looking for. Is that the case? Is it the case that the standard of living, education, ... in social services is good? No. Not at all. There's constant scandals and if a child that gets into a social services institution makes it into university, just one, any given year, that's national news. Prostitution in social services is common, drugs and crime are everywhere. It seems there is A LOT more work to be done on the other side of social services first. They seem to perform VERY badly once they actually catch someone. So why do this? Because it isn't to help children. At the very best they see this as a cheap way to look like they're improving social services.
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    They're building the penthouse suite with all the luxuries you could imagine, but the foundation is rotting away and, if anything, becoming more ignored rather than increasingly important. It lays bare that their motivation is blanket surveillance for their own political ends and nothing to do with protecting children in the slightest. Social Services are one of the most consistently underfunded and under-resources arms of government. Australia has recently had to "increase the bar" at which mandatory reporting is required because the resources don't exist to even consider investigation of cases where the child's life isn't in immediate danger. It's gross, but it seems politics around the world has found it's shared water level, and that level is happy with exploiting exploited children.
loceng 2y ago
Using this as a means to manufacture consent to implement-enforce such systems, and then what regulation will be used to counter the tyrannical takeover of these systems - who may be the most vile child predators seeking control-power to be able to do what they want - to pillage, rape, and murder as they please?
namaria 2y ago
> literally implementing > it failed to pass recently These two sentences cannot be both true
LightBug1 2y ago
In the UK, I have a stormtrooper standing behind me in my bedroom as I type this. He just asked me to explain the context of the message I'm writing to you now.
tome 2y ago
Perhaps you got thrown by the double negative? > I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort means > I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
- andrewshadura 2y ago
  No, it doesn't?
  - tome 2y ago
    Thanks, yes, I should have said > I believe no western nation wants any messaging to be non-locally-backdoored
    - tome 2y ago
      Actually, this seems to be the clearest way of getting rid of negatives: > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors
      - froggit 2y ago
        > > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors != >> I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
        tome 2y ago
        Correct. andrewshadura pointed that out above, too. The former is equivalent to the original formulation that I was trying to simplify.

chad1n 2y ago

EU has been complaining about Telegram's end-to-end encryption for a long time and they want to implement some regulations to basically add backdoors into all messaging apps. I don't really see how this case will go on since at least private chats are encrypted so Telegram (theoretically at least) can't see the contents.

EduardoBautista 2y ago
Are they going to arrest Zuckerberg and Tim Cook next for the encryption in WhatsApp and iMessage?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crote 2y ago
  What makes you believe those do not have backdoors for Western powers?
- verisimi 2y ago
  Perhaps they already have backdoors, but don't tell everyone.
- rubymamis 2y ago
  Maybe not, if they already got backdoors?
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    If Apple hypothetically agreed to iMessage backdoors, why would you trust the Telegram app updates served up by Apple's app store? Western government's can pretty much hack into any device they want - the only reason for backdooring messaging apps would be for dragnet surveillance, and I don't see big tech having the appetite for the bad publicity and lawsuits that will result when that inevitably becomes public
    - 2y ago

gtvwill 2y ago

But here's the thing. If your app is known to be uses heavily by criminals ranging from Pedo's to drug dealers. You are liable. You run a carrier service. Much like the owner of omegle found out, yes you do have a duty of care. You can't just provide a service that knowingly provides a platform to criminal activity and do jack shit. You live in fairytale land if you think you can.

codedokode 2y ago
What do you mean by "knowingly providing a service to a criminal"? Is Elon Mask then guilty for providing access to Twitter for Trump?
- gtvwill 2y ago
  Well much like the owner of omegle found out you can't provide platforms for criminal activities and make no effort to curb it. It only takes a 30 second google before you find telegram rooms offering all kinds of illegal stuff. You don't find that on Twitter. Twitter is atleast mildly moderated. Telegram could have moderation built in to catch illegal activities but it chooses to do nothing. See the difference?
  - chad1n 2y ago
    Telegram is end-to-end encrypted in private chats, the Telegram team doesn't even know what people are discussing. Same should happen with Whatsapp or Signal. Should Whatsapp or Signal be accountable for what terrorists talk in private?
    - gtvwill 2y ago
      App can have internal keyword check that could open backdoor to law enforcement when certain terms are said. *fbi enters the conversation* probably won't be in your chat log anytime soon but you can't argue telegram, signal and whatsapp can't do it. Whatsapp being fbs darling almost certainly does already and signal servers anti spam folder is smelling mighty like a five eyes backdoor. Tbh given both those apps company's have dealings with gov in aus I'm gonna say signals probably already got a backdoor into em. If you don't think so you don't know aus law well enough or who signals are. Also the owners of the apps aren't liable for the content of the conversations. Their liable for providing a platform for the conversation to take place and for not knowingly taking available efforts to curb criminal activity on that platfor/service. It's like hey I'm gonna rent you a store house to hide all your illegal drugs in Mr gang member. I'm not doing the hiding or anything but I'm assisting the activity by providing the store house. I could make efforts to curb such activity like you know doing a rental inspection once every six months but I choose not to and turn a blind eye. Am I assisting a crime or am I completely innocent? Now repeat this but telegram is the store house.

mandmandam 2y ago

[flagged]

mlindner 2y ago

I find it highly amusing that people on here actually think secure messaging platforms are "locally backdoored". Despite what the article says, Telegram is not even a nominally end-to-end encrypted platform. You need to jump through hoops to get end-to-end encryption on the platform.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sansii 2y ago
"You need to jump through hoops to get end-to-end encryption on the platform." What do you mean by this?
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago
  It's opt in
- tillulen 2y ago
  On Telegram, even private messages are not end-to-end encrypted by default. The so-called secret chats are end-to-end encrypted but are a major pain to use.
  - akikoo 2y ago
    > but are a major pain to use It's a major pain for gen z

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ein0p 2y ago

The main problem with Telegram is it’s not subject to Western surveillance and censorship. Best I can tell, it’s also not subject to Eastern surveillance and censorship which is why it was (unsuccessfully) banned in Russia in 2018. As of right now, this is one of the few places where you can find true information about WW3 which is currently ongoing in Ukraine. This is true of all sides of the conflict: the only truly uncensored source right now is Telegram, whether you’re in Ukraine, in Russia or in the west. People investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the war do not like this lack of control over the narrative. That is why Durov is in jail.

Fnoord 2y ago
> [..] That is why Durov is in jail. Speculative. We don't know why he is in jail. Maybe his lawyers know why, maybe not. Maybe the prosecutor knows, maybe not. We don't know if there's a case. There's hardly anything we do know. My take is he doesn't reply to LE requests related to CSAM. That is one of the few things we (as in: our governments) don't like anywhere in the world, and Telegram is known to respond slowly to [such] requests. But I won't pretend I know for sure. Cause either way, it is a neat honeypot compared to technically better protocols.
croes 2y ago
And how to you find the true uncensored information between all the propaganda on telegram?
- mediumsmart 2y ago
  That’s easy. You pick a channel that agrees with your general view of your world.
  - croes 2y ago
    So echo chambers
- ein0p 2y ago
  You look at both sides and try to get some nuggets of truth out of that mountain of bullshit by checking what doesn’t line up. Thing is, though, if you only look at the mainstream media, you can’t even figure out what’s bullshit - the conflicting narratives are suppressed so well that editors of Pravda would blush.

thisislife2 2y ago

> According to the French authorities, Durov, who is estimated to be worth €13.9 billion by Forbes, is being charged as an accomplice to crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, terrorism and crimes against children over Telegram’s alleged “lack of moderation and cooperation with law enforcement”, as well for Telegram’s use of disposable numbers, and for allowing cryptocurrency transfers that cannot be monitored by the authorities. - https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/08/25/russian-billionaire-telegram-founder-pavel-durov-arrested-in-paris-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/08/25/russian-billiona...

t0bia_s 2y ago
Basically DSA to eliminate political opponents and potential danger for establishment.
- thisislife2 2y ago
  Seems more a NATO intelligence operation - apparently, there are rumours that he met recently Putin, and had extensive discussions with Kremlin officials - https://archive.is/8sdYQ https://archive.is/8sdYQ . The investigation against him is pretty broad according to the charges laid against him by the French authorities - https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-08-26%20-%20CP%20TELEGRAM%20.pdf https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files... (PDF, english translation from page 3).