5 ms·

Dotcom got extradited (which was declared legal much later). Durov landed in a country that had an arrest warrant out for him. I hope his situation isn't simil

Dotcom got extradited (which was declared legal much later). Durov landed in a country that had an arrest warrant out for him. I hope his situation isn't similar to Dotcom's, as Dotcom was shown to be complicit in the crimes he was being persecuted for. Convicting the megaupload people would've been a LOT harder if they hadn't been uploading and curating illegal content on their platform themselves. As a service provider, you're not responsible for what your users post as long as you take appropriate action after being informed of illegal content. That's where they're trying to get Telegram, because Telegram is known to ignore law enforcement as much as possible (to the point of doing so illegally and getting fined for it).

loceng 2y ago
From my understanding the arrest warrant only was created while he was en route; sneaky sneaky..
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  That’s really dark and dystopian
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    really? we seal warrants in the US all the time - we don't want people who we are trying to apprehend to always know ahead of time we are trying to apprehend them
    - frankharv 2y ago
      I found this airplane trickery amusing. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/son-el-chapo-another-sinaloa-cartel-leader-arrested-texas-rcna163757 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/son-el-chapo-another-si...
    - archerx 2y ago
      The US is on it’s way to becoming a dystopia so not the best argument…
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        maybe, but i don't think sealed warrants are the reason
        ipaddr 2y ago
        There purpose is to hide charges as longas possible to deceive or trick which is against a fully transparent process
        matwood 2y ago
        There are valid reasons, like stopping people from destroying evidence or fleeing.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        There are also valid reasons the other way, like consulting an attorney to challenge the warrant or prepare a defense before it gets executed, disrupts your life and prevents you from clearing your name because you're being incarcerated without bail. It's hard to investigate the charges against you from a cell. Or the ability of journalists to inform the public of what the government is getting on with in their name. If the government is investigating their critics they have no right to keep it a secret.
        karaterobot 2y ago
        You're somewhat mistaken. In the U.S., you aren't owed a warning that the cops are looking for you, especially if you're a flight risk. That was never part of it.
      - hnpolicestate 2y ago
        That inconvenient bill of rights keeps us a step or two behind the rest of the anglosphere in decent to tyranny, but only for so long. It just takes a handful of dishonest judges to claim some right actually means something entirely different.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  your understanding is based on what? i would assume this is just standard unsealed warrant like they have in the US
  - gabaix 2y ago
    I found this article that explains that the arrest warrant was only to be activated if Pavel was on the French territory. (French) https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/reseaux-sociaux/le-patron-de-telegram-pavel-durov-vise-par-un-mandat-d-arret-interpelle-a-l-aeroport-du-bourget-21128501.php https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/reseaux-sociaux/le-patron-d... It could have been a warrant that was not communicated to Durov himself. This would have helped to catch him by surprise.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      yeah so sounds like (what in the US we call) a sealed warrant, not that it was literally issued while he was in the air
    - rtsil 2y ago
      The Sud-Ouest article must have been updated because the version currently online does not mention that at all. Quite the opposite, the article quotes an official that was surprised that Durov would come to Paris anyway even though he knew he was under an arrest warrant in France, and another source says that he might have decided to come in France anyway because he believed he'll never be held accountable.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  According to the more detailed news sources I can find about this, it seems he knew the French were looking for him. I don't know if he knew about the contents of the warrant, but it does seem he knew the authorities were planning to arrest him. From what I can tell the warrant has been out for longer, but he was arrested when the airport police noticed his name was on a list. There's not a lot of information out there, with neither the French authorities nor Telegram providing any official statements to the media.
- philistine 2y ago
  Fuck around and find out. If he legitimately ignored legal French documents forcing him to share information, as the French have declared, he's got got. You don't step foot on a country with an extradition treaty, even less so the country itself, where you're flouting their warrants for your company's data.
  - pajeets 2y ago
    so which country doesnt dubai and uae extradite to?
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      Despite having lots of treaties agreeing to extradition in principle, the UAE is somewhat notorious for never extraditing anybody anywhere in practice. https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/a-golden-opportunity-for-uae/ https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/a-golden-opportunity-f...
  - coldtea 2y ago
    [flagged]
petesergeant 2y ago
> Durov landed in a country that had an arrest warrant out for him. And of which he’s a citizen, fwiw
walterbell 2y ago
https://restoreprivacy.com/telegram-sharing-user-data/ https://restoreprivacy.com/telegram-sharing-user-data/ > the operators of the messenger app Telegram have released user data to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in several cases. According to SPIEGEL information, this was data from suspects in the areas of child abuse and terrorism. In the case of violations of other criminal offenses, it is still difficult for German investigators to obtain information from Telegram, according to security circles. https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/chat-apps-government-ties-and-transparency https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/chat-apps-government-ties-a... > two popular chat services have accused each other of having undisclosed government ties. According to Signal president Meredith Whittaker, Telegram is not only “notoriously insecure” but also “routinely cooperates with governments behind the scenes.” Telegram founder Pavel Durov, on the other hand, claims that “the US government spent $3 million to build Signal’s encryption” and Signal’s current leaders are “activists used by the US state department for regime change abroad.”
- medion 2y ago
  Signal built by the US government? Is there any more actual information on this claim?
  - walterbell 2y ago
    Signal's early funding source is public record, https://www.opentech.fund/projects-we-support/supported-projects/signal-open-whisper-systems/ https://www.opentech.fund/projects-we-support/supported-proj... Double Ratchet [1] is also used by WhatsApp (2B+ users) and IETF MLS [2] standard for E2EE group messaging. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm [2] https://www.ietf.org/blog/mls-secure-and-usable-end-to-end-encryption/ https://www.ietf.org/blog/mls-secure-and-usable-end-to-end-e...
    - threeseed 2y ago
      I don't understand. Nothing in this comment is about the US government funding Signal's encryption.
throwaway346434 2y ago
Wrong. https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/-i-m-not-leaving---kim-dotcom-faces-extradition-to-us.html https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/-i-m-not-leaving---kim-do... 1) There was an order signed recently. He has not physically left NZ yet. 2) He's not convicted, he hasn't been in front of a judge for the charges against him
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Convicting the megaupload people would've been a LOT harder if they hadn't been uploading and curating illegal content on their platform themselves. This is just a gimmick to bamboozle judges and the public. The ploy is to claim that someone is guilty of serious offense A because you proved they committed less serious offense B, even though the offenses have different elements and penalties. They use the ploy because any large organization by definition has a lot of people in it and copyright infringement is pretty common, so by the law of large numbers somebody in the company is probably doing it even if the company doesn't want them to and then the prosecutors want to claim that the company as a whole is doing something wrong and has to be shut down. Which doesn't make any sense when another company is just going to provide the same perfectly legal service and the users are going to use it for the exact same thing. Moreover, the obvious way for companies to prevent this -- indeed, the thing Megaupload's replacement started doing after the original was shut down -- is to encrypt everything so their employees have no access to it. Which I have no objection to, but if courts and prosecutors like to be able to issue a subpoena and actually get something back, they might want to reconsider turning the ability of a company to access data into a liability.

loceng 2y ago

From my understanding the arrest warrant only was created while he was en route; sneaky sneaky..

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
That’s really dark and dystopian
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  really? we seal warrants in the US all the time - we don't want people who we are trying to apprehend to always know ahead of time we are trying to apprehend them
  - frankharv 2y ago
    I found this airplane trickery amusing. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/son-el-chapo-another-sinaloa-cartel-leader-arrested-texas-rcna163757 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/son-el-chapo-another-si...
  - archerx 2y ago
    The US is on it’s way to becoming a dystopia so not the best argument…
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      maybe, but i don't think sealed warrants are the reason
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        There purpose is to hide charges as longas possible to deceive or trick which is against a fully transparent process
        matwood 2y ago
        There are valid reasons, like stopping people from destroying evidence or fleeing.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        There are also valid reasons the other way, like consulting an attorney to challenge the warrant or prepare a defense before it gets executed, disrupts your life and prevents you from clearing your name because you're being incarcerated without bail. It's hard to investigate the charges against you from a cell. Or the ability of journalists to inform the public of what the government is getting on with in their name. If the government is investigating their critics they have no right to keep it a secret.
        karaterobot 2y ago
        You're somewhat mistaken. In the U.S., you aren't owed a warning that the cops are looking for you, especially if you're a flight risk. That was never part of it.
    - hnpolicestate 2y ago
      That inconvenient bill of rights keeps us a step or two behind the rest of the anglosphere in decent to tyranny, but only for so long. It just takes a handful of dishonest judges to claim some right actually means something entirely different.
whimsicalism 2y ago
your understanding is based on what? i would assume this is just standard unsealed warrant like they have in the US
- gabaix 2y ago
  I found this article that explains that the arrest warrant was only to be activated if Pavel was on the French territory. (French) https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/reseaux-sociaux/le-patron-de-telegram-pavel-durov-vise-par-un-mandat-d-arret-interpelle-a-l-aeroport-du-bourget-21128501.php https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/reseaux-sociaux/le-patron-d... It could have been a warrant that was not communicated to Durov himself. This would have helped to catch him by surprise.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    yeah so sounds like (what in the US we call) a sealed warrant, not that it was literally issued while he was in the air
  - rtsil 2y ago
    The Sud-Ouest article must have been updated because the version currently online does not mention that at all. Quite the opposite, the article quotes an official that was surprised that Durov would come to Paris anyway even though he knew he was under an arrest warrant in France, and another source says that he might have decided to come in France anyway because he believed he'll never be held accountable.
jeroenhd 2y ago
According to the more detailed news sources I can find about this, it seems he knew the French were looking for him. I don't know if he knew about the contents of the warrant, but it does seem he knew the authorities were planning to arrest him. From what I can tell the warrant has been out for longer, but he was arrested when the airport police noticed his name was on a list. There's not a lot of information out there, with neither the French authorities nor Telegram providing any official statements to the media.
philistine 2y ago
Fuck around and find out. If he legitimately ignored legal French documents forcing him to share information, as the French have declared, he's got got. You don't step foot on a country with an extradition treaty, even less so the country itself, where you're flouting their warrants for your company's data.
- pajeets 2y ago
  so which country doesnt dubai and uae extradite to?
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    Despite having lots of treaties agreeing to extradition in principle, the UAE is somewhat notorious for never extraditing anybody anywhere in practice. https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/a-golden-opportunity-for-uae/ https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/a-golden-opportunity-f...
- coldtea 2y ago
  [flagged]

petesergeant 2y ago

> Durov landed in a country that had an arrest warrant out for him. And of which he’s a citizen, fwiw

walterbell 2y ago

https://restoreprivacy.com/telegram-sharing-user-data/ https://restoreprivacy.com/telegram-sharing-user-data/ > the operators of the messenger app Telegram have released user data to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in several cases. According to SPIEGEL information, this was data from suspects in the areas of child abuse and terrorism. In the case of violations of other criminal offenses, it is still difficult for German investigators to obtain information from Telegram, according to security circles. https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/chat-apps-government-ties-and-transparency https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/chat-apps-government-ties-a... > two popular chat services have accused each other of having undisclosed government ties. According to Signal president Meredith Whittaker, Telegram is not only “notoriously insecure” but also “routinely cooperates with governments behind the scenes.” Telegram founder Pavel Durov, on the other hand, claims that “the US government spent $3 million to build Signal’s encryption” and Signal’s current leaders are “activists used by the US state department for regime change abroad.”

medion 2y ago
Signal built by the US government? Is there any more actual information on this claim?
- walterbell 2y ago
  Signal's early funding source is public record, https://www.opentech.fund/projects-we-support/supported-projects/signal-open-whisper-systems/ https://www.opentech.fund/projects-we-support/supported-proj... Double Ratchet [1] is also used by WhatsApp (2B+ users) and IETF MLS [2] standard for E2EE group messaging. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm [2] https://www.ietf.org/blog/mls-secure-and-usable-end-to-end-encryption/ https://www.ietf.org/blog/mls-secure-and-usable-end-to-end-e...
  - threeseed 2y ago
    I don't understand. Nothing in this comment is about the US government funding Signal's encryption.

throwaway346434 2y ago

Wrong. https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/-i-m-not-leaving---kim-dotcom-faces-extradition-to-us.html https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/-i-m-not-leaving---kim-do... 1) There was an order signed recently. He has not physically left NZ yet. 2) He's not convicted, he hasn't been in front of a judge for the charges against him

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Convicting the megaupload people would've been a LOT harder if they hadn't been uploading and curating illegal content on their platform themselves. This is just a gimmick to bamboozle judges and the public. The ploy is to claim that someone is guilty of serious offense A because you proved they committed less serious offense B, even though the offenses have different elements and penalties. They use the ploy because any large organization by definition has a lot of people in it and copyright infringement is pretty common, so by the law of large numbers somebody in the company is probably doing it even if the company doesn't want them to and then the prosecutors want to claim that the company as a whole is doing something wrong and has to be shut down. Which doesn't make any sense when another company is just going to provide the same perfectly legal service and the users are going to use it for the exact same thing. Moreover, the obvious way for companies to prevent this -- indeed, the thing Megaupload's replacement started doing after the original was shut down -- is to encrypt everything so their employees have no access to it. Which I have no objection to, but if courts and prosecutors like to be able to issue a subpoena and actually get something back, they might want to reconsider turning the ability of a company to access data into a liability.