5 ms·

I upvoted your comment so that it has a bit of visibility because I know some people think this, but I disagree with it, very strongly. First, your analogy is

I upvoted your comment so that it has a bit of visibility because I know some people think this, but I disagree with it, very strongly. First, your analogy is broken -- roads, telephones, pen and paper, motor vehicles all fit your description just as aptly. Second, you propose your preferred moral economy as one that only curtails harms. In fact, you create another harm implementing what you think is right. Reasonable people disagree about which is worse -- the creation and public support of a technocratic oligarchy in control of how humans communicate or the proliferation of some harms that take advantage of unfettered communication. But please don't be simple minded, pretending to yourself or others that there aren't real costs, social and physical, on both sides of this. For myself, I think private communications are a human right and a massive good for society, and I don't condone criminal acts undertaken using messaging.

Barrin92 2y ago
>First, your analogy is broken -- roads, telephones, pen and paper, motor vehicles all fit your description just as aptly. and they're usually public property and policed. Routine police inspection on a road and in particular control of borders and key nodes in your transportation infrastructure isn't exactly controversial. (unless you're part of some extreme political faction). You know a lot of countries where people can drive without a license plate? Private communication is important but it has always had limits, this crypto mentality of companies exercising no compliance, having no borders, ignoring the law and national security doesn't have a precedent. Historically people communicated say in the US using an American telecommunications network which without a doubt complied with legal requests. It's not at all self evident that we should tolerate telecoms infrastructure operated by a Russian out of Dubai that is primarily used by an enemy we're effectively at war with.
- jack_pp 2y ago
  That's because they are different, police can come with a warrant to check your house for illegal activity but they can't monitor you remotely 24/7 with barely any human intervention and store everything you do indefinitely. With electronic communication you either get full privacy or none. And no, putting company's in charge of your privacy isn't a solution, if they can be compelled to give away your communication history then they'll abuse it. Have you not learned anything from the Snowden leaks?
  - yorwba 2y ago
    Police got a warrant for Durov and arrested him. How is that different? Yet some people are upset anyways. And it's not true that with electronic communication you either get full privacy or none. You can have end-to-end encrypted messages with unencrypted metadata, so that when police observe a message implicating the sender in a crime (e.g. on an arrested suspect's phone) they can get a search warrant for the IP address or phone number associated with that account and then visit the owner in person to look at the messages on their phone. This doesn't allow police to read everyone's messages all the time undetected, but does allow them to read specific people's messages if they get a warrant. Since Telegram doesn't only have unencrypted metadata but also plenty of unencrypted messages, there must've been many cases where a search warrant would've yielded lots of useful information. If Telegram didn't properly respond to all warrants, it seems fair to launch an investigation.
    - jiiam 2y ago
      According to the Telegram FAQ (https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests) data on their servers is encrypted and the keys are split and stored in different jurisdictions (and different from the jurisdiction where the data is stored). With such a setup what does it mean to comply with warrants? Are we saying that Telegram should voluntarily yield all information regardless of jurisdiction?
      - yorwba 2y ago
        Ah, this multi-jurisdiction setup explains why Durov himself was targeted. As the presumed controlling entity behind that network of shell companies, serving him with a warrant seems like the most effective legal means to make Telegram comply.
op00to 2y ago
Indeed. NIMBYs in my area claim that we should shut down the train because criminals come from the inter city to commit crimes and then return to the city after. I see the claims against telegram to be the same.
- epistasis 2y ago
  That's not comparable, because there's an actual police service meant to take care of criminal activity, meaning that's the train is not a careless conduit with rampant unchecked lawless activity. And that's ignoring that NIMBYs just make up stuff and exaggerate, but even assuming their rampant fears were based in reality.
dev1ycan 2y ago
While I agree that private communication should be a human right I also do think that your analogy is wrong. "roads, telephones, pen and paper, motor vehicles all fit your description just as aptly." All of those can be monitored by the government, even your letters could be.
- parineum 2y ago
  What if you write your letters in a cipher?
wussboy 2y ago
I think private communications are a human right as well. But I don’t think every conceivable way of communicating must be private. You can always go outside and talk privately with your neighbour. To use your analogy: shouldn’t everyone look away when you drive by so that you can have private road usage?
- rowanG077 2y ago
  There is tinted windows for that. I agree that not everything is private. But if two or more parties want to be able to communicate privately it most certainly shouldn't be the government making that impossible. It would be like mandating everyone must wear their state issued camera and microphone.
Fnoord 2y ago
There are entire Telegram groups devoted to publishing CSAM. They're publicly available, not E2E encrypted. Being there in such a channel puts the data on your device, unencrypted. You can report it all you want. Nothing happens. Been there, done it. It is not just that. Weapons. Drugs. Terrorism [1]. Pornography depicting rape. [1] Includes accelerationism. France just had a terrorist attack on a synagogue. Germany had one on a city festival. Could be related to either. We don't know! And yet, with all above being said, as much of a cesspool Telegram is, I much rather have such centralized there than in an application with group E2E encryption. But even then, every once in a while you want to scare the herd to demotivate their (criminal) effort, just be careful not to flock them to a better alternative. Which is a real risk.
- sam_lowry_ 2y ago
  [flagged]

Barrin92 2y ago

>First, your analogy is broken -- roads, telephones, pen and paper, motor vehicles all fit your description just as aptly. and they're usually public property and policed. Routine police inspection on a road and in particular control of borders and key nodes in your transportation infrastructure isn't exactly controversial. (unless you're part of some extreme political faction). You know a lot of countries where people can drive without a license plate? Private communication is important but it has always had limits, this crypto mentality of companies exercising no compliance, having no borders, ignoring the law and national security doesn't have a precedent. Historically people communicated say in the US using an American telecommunications network which without a doubt complied with legal requests. It's not at all self evident that we should tolerate telecoms infrastructure operated by a Russian out of Dubai that is primarily used by an enemy we're effectively at war with.

jack_pp 2y ago
That's because they are different, police can come with a warrant to check your house for illegal activity but they can't monitor you remotely 24/7 with barely any human intervention and store everything you do indefinitely. With electronic communication you either get full privacy or none. And no, putting company's in charge of your privacy isn't a solution, if they can be compelled to give away your communication history then they'll abuse it. Have you not learned anything from the Snowden leaks?
- yorwba 2y ago
  Police got a warrant for Durov and arrested him. How is that different? Yet some people are upset anyways. And it's not true that with electronic communication you either get full privacy or none. You can have end-to-end encrypted messages with unencrypted metadata, so that when police observe a message implicating the sender in a crime (e.g. on an arrested suspect's phone) they can get a search warrant for the IP address or phone number associated with that account and then visit the owner in person to look at the messages on their phone. This doesn't allow police to read everyone's messages all the time undetected, but does allow them to read specific people's messages if they get a warrant. Since Telegram doesn't only have unencrypted metadata but also plenty of unencrypted messages, there must've been many cases where a search warrant would've yielded lots of useful information. If Telegram didn't properly respond to all warrants, it seems fair to launch an investigation.
  - jiiam 2y ago
    According to the Telegram FAQ (https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests https://www.telegram.org/faq#q-do-you-process-data-requests) data on their servers is encrypted and the keys are split and stored in different jurisdictions (and different from the jurisdiction where the data is stored). With such a setup what does it mean to comply with warrants? Are we saying that Telegram should voluntarily yield all information regardless of jurisdiction?
    - yorwba 2y ago
      Ah, this multi-jurisdiction setup explains why Durov himself was targeted. As the presumed controlling entity behind that network of shell companies, serving him with a warrant seems like the most effective legal means to make Telegram comply.

op00to 2y ago

Indeed. NIMBYs in my area claim that we should shut down the train because criminals come from the inter city to commit crimes and then return to the city after. I see the claims against telegram to be the same.

epistasis 2y ago
That's not comparable, because there's an actual police service meant to take care of criminal activity, meaning that's the train is not a careless conduit with rampant unchecked lawless activity. And that's ignoring that NIMBYs just make up stuff and exaggerate, but even assuming their rampant fears were based in reality.

dev1ycan 2y ago

While I agree that private communication should be a human right I also do think that your analogy is wrong. "roads, telephones, pen and paper, motor vehicles all fit your description just as aptly." All of those can be monitored by the government, even your letters could be.

parineum 2y ago
What if you write your letters in a cipher?

wussboy 2y ago

I think private communications are a human right as well. But I don’t think every conceivable way of communicating must be private. You can always go outside and talk privately with your neighbour. To use your analogy: shouldn’t everyone look away when you drive by so that you can have private road usage?

rowanG077 2y ago
There is tinted windows for that. I agree that not everything is private. But if two or more parties want to be able to communicate privately it most certainly shouldn't be the government making that impossible. It would be like mandating everyone must wear their state issued camera and microphone.

Fnoord 2y ago

There are entire Telegram groups devoted to publishing CSAM. They're publicly available, not E2E encrypted. Being there in such a channel puts the data on your device, unencrypted. You can report it all you want. Nothing happens. Been there, done it. It is not just that. Weapons. Drugs. Terrorism [1]. Pornography depicting rape. [1] Includes accelerationism. France just had a terrorist attack on a synagogue. Germany had one on a city festival. Could be related to either. We don't know! And yet, with all above being said, as much of a cesspool Telegram is, I much rather have such centralized there than in an application with group E2E encryption. But even then, every once in a while you want to scare the herd to demotivate their (criminal) effort, just be careful not to flock them to a better alternative. Which is a real risk.

sam_lowry_ 2y ago
[flagged]