5 ms·

> I think it is perfectly fair for governments to have some control to take down large channels that are clearly against the law How is a channel "against the

> I think it is perfectly fair for governments to have some control to take down large channels that are clearly against the law How is a channel "against the law?" Do you mean access to the channel is creating opportunities for lawlessness that simply wouldn't exist otherwise? I'm not sure the French justice system has demonstrated that it has exhausted all options other than to handcuff a CEO of one particular platform.

sega_sai 2y ago
A channel that incites violence is against the law (in some countries). A channel selling drugs is against the law. These are few examples. I do not how the specific details of the French case to comment on the specifics. I could believe the arrest is poorly justified, but I have reasonably belief in their justice system.
- akira2501 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > How does an inanimate object incite violence or sell drugs? Please stop being so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this. Certainly the participants of the channel are the ones who incite violence or sell drugs. But some laws also make it illegal to "host" the people who do those sorts of things. A Telegram channel can host these people. > If France can't access these channels, how do they know the violence or drugs are actually occurring _in_ France? They can access those channels. > And if they could know that, what does Telegram have to do with it? Telegram is hosting the content, and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. > Wouldn't they just be able to go and arrest the violent person or the drug dealer? Not if they don't know where the people are, because Telegram hides their real identities and locations.
    - calf 2y ago
      It's not so much obtuseness as different assumptions about what is "normal" law: most young American computer-science trained programmers probably believe that ISPs or even Pirate Bay websites are not responsible for online crimes such as piracy, the authorities should go after the distributors of pirated material, and so this event does not fit the prior mental schema. It's a difference due to values, expectations, context having to do with how we reason about technology and in large part this depends on one's background technical culture, which varies depending on country as well as the type of university of study, exposure to Silicon Valley attitudes, etc.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this I'm not being obtuse, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable with someone rather blithely saying a "channel is against the law." I'm probing the depths of that. I'm sorry if this is somehow inconvenient to you but I have no intention of altering my behavior and I find it rude that you would even ask in such a way. > A Telegram channel can host these people. Is this the majority of users? Is Telegram intentionally marketing it's services to these users? Does it do internal research to be more appealing to this use case? > They can access those channels. So Telegram is not intentionally hiding them from the government or preventing their discovery and infiltration by law enforcement? Then why arrest the CEO? > and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. If you're comfortable saying "well, it's legal in France" then what do you hope to gain from further discussion with someone you believe is going to be intentionally obtuse? > because Telegram hides their real identities and locations. They are buying drugs? Doesn't this require two people to meet up and physically exchange goods and money? What good does outlawing the channel do?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  A channel doesn’t do that though. People do that. If I take a megaphone to the street corner and start selling drugs, are you really going to arrest the megaphone I used?
  - nephanth 2y ago
    Weird parallel. If you're on the street it's easier to arrest you. Now if your megaphone is used exclusively to sell drugs and for some reason you cannot be arrested, then it makes sense to confiscate it?
  - mdrzn 2y ago
    You're in your house using a walkie talkie connected to a megaphone placed in the streets, and you're yelling that you sell drugs. Should the police leave the megaphone/walkie talkie untouched because "it's just an object, it's not the megaphone selling drugs?" Or should they remove it, and try to find you?
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      They can remove it sure. But why go after the manufacturer of the megaphone? Thats what they are doing with the telegram chief.
kranke155 2y ago
drug trade, crypto scam coordination. All on Telegram.
- akira2501 2y ago
  All on a telephone, too.
  - twelve40 2y ago
    and probably whatsapp, viber, signal, discord too?
    - zx8080 2y ago
      Internet is so full of it. And also financial scam. When do they restrict it? /S
    - kelnos 2y ago
      "Probably" doesn't cut it. If law enforcement doesn't observe it (as would likely be the case on an E2EE-by-default platform), then there's nothing actionable they can do. If they do observe it, and the platform owners are responsive to taking down illegal content and/or providing information on the participants, then likely law enforcement is satisfied with that.
      - twelve40 2y ago
        you're right. Only they have probably have the fullest data on how much crime is moderated or unmoderated on what messenger, the rest is speculation. He probably just got cocky and overconfident, thinking he can beef with the EU on the same level like Musk or Gates.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Yes, and telephone operators are required to give law enforcement enough access in order to track down people who do crimes over the telephone. Telegram does not do that, and does not shut down the illegal behavior. The problem isn't that illegal stuff happens on Telegram, the problem is that Telegram won't help law enforcement when that illegal behavior is found.
phkamp 2y ago
It will probably help if people take the time to read Article 8 in the European Declaration of Human Rights: Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Thus a channel where terror actions are planned /can be made/ "against the law", but it will not automatically be so, unless there is a specific french law that makes it so.

sega_sai 2y ago

A channel that incites violence is against the law (in some countries). A channel selling drugs is against the law. These are few examples. I do not how the specific details of the French case to comment on the specifics. I could believe the arrest is poorly justified, but I have reasonably belief in their justice system.

akira2501 2y ago
[flagged]
- kelnos 2y ago
  > How does an inanimate object incite violence or sell drugs? Please stop being so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this. Certainly the participants of the channel are the ones who incite violence or sell drugs. But some laws also make it illegal to "host" the people who do those sorts of things. A Telegram channel can host these people. > If France can't access these channels, how do they know the violence or drugs are actually occurring _in_ France? They can access those channels. > And if they could know that, what does Telegram have to do with it? Telegram is hosting the content, and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. > Wouldn't they just be able to go and arrest the violent person or the drug dealer? Not if they don't know where the people are, because Telegram hides their real identities and locations.
  - calf 2y ago
    It's not so much obtuseness as different assumptions about what is "normal" law: most young American computer-science trained programmers probably believe that ISPs or even Pirate Bay websites are not responsible for online crimes such as piracy, the authorities should go after the distributors of pirated material, and so this event does not fit the prior mental schema. It's a difference due to values, expectations, context having to do with how we reason about technology and in large part this depends on one's background technical culture, which varies depending on country as well as the type of university of study, exposure to Silicon Valley attitudes, etc.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this I'm not being obtuse, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable with someone rather blithely saying a "channel is against the law." I'm probing the depths of that. I'm sorry if this is somehow inconvenient to you but I have no intention of altering my behavior and I find it rude that you would even ask in such a way. > A Telegram channel can host these people. Is this the majority of users? Is Telegram intentionally marketing it's services to these users? Does it do internal research to be more appealing to this use case? > They can access those channels. So Telegram is not intentionally hiding them from the government or preventing their discovery and infiltration by law enforcement? Then why arrest the CEO? > and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. If you're comfortable saying "well, it's legal in France" then what do you hope to gain from further discussion with someone you believe is going to be intentionally obtuse? > because Telegram hides their real identities and locations. They are buying drugs? Doesn't this require two people to meet up and physically exchange goods and money? What good does outlawing the channel do?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kjkjadksj 2y ago
A channel doesn’t do that though. People do that. If I take a megaphone to the street corner and start selling drugs, are you really going to arrest the megaphone I used?
- nephanth 2y ago
  Weird parallel. If you're on the street it's easier to arrest you. Now if your megaphone is used exclusively to sell drugs and for some reason you cannot be arrested, then it makes sense to confiscate it?
- mdrzn 2y ago
  You're in your house using a walkie talkie connected to a megaphone placed in the streets, and you're yelling that you sell drugs. Should the police leave the megaphone/walkie talkie untouched because "it's just an object, it's not the megaphone selling drugs?" Or should they remove it, and try to find you?
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    They can remove it sure. But why go after the manufacturer of the megaphone? Thats what they are doing with the telegram chief.

kranke155 2y ago

drug trade, crypto scam coordination. All on Telegram.

akira2501 2y ago
All on a telephone, too.
- twelve40 2y ago
  and probably whatsapp, viber, signal, discord too?
  - zx8080 2y ago
    Internet is so full of it. And also financial scam. When do they restrict it? /S
  - kelnos 2y ago
    "Probably" doesn't cut it. If law enforcement doesn't observe it (as would likely be the case on an E2EE-by-default platform), then there's nothing actionable they can do. If they do observe it, and the platform owners are responsive to taking down illegal content and/or providing information on the participants, then likely law enforcement is satisfied with that.
    - twelve40 2y ago
      you're right. Only they have probably have the fullest data on how much crime is moderated or unmoderated on what messenger, the rest is speculation. He probably just got cocky and overconfident, thinking he can beef with the EU on the same level like Musk or Gates.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Yes, and telephone operators are required to give law enforcement enough access in order to track down people who do crimes over the telephone. Telegram does not do that, and does not shut down the illegal behavior. The problem isn't that illegal stuff happens on Telegram, the problem is that Telegram won't help law enforcement when that illegal behavior is found.

phkamp 2y ago

It will probably help if people take the time to read Article 8 in the European Declaration of Human Rights: Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Thus a channel where terror actions are planned /can be made/ "against the law", but it will not automatically be so, unless there is a specific french law that makes it so.