4 ms·

What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone. To be logically consistent, what if say Iran wants the re

What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone. To be logically consistent, what if say Iran wants the records of the head of the CIA? The concern is not limited to Telegram; it generalizes to any messaging app.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
"rules for thee not for me" EU has been doing a lot of really bad stuff regarding the freedom of private communication recently (last few years), but they still manage to complain about others.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
If the head of the CIA stepped foot in Iran, you bet your butt that they'd be at serious risk of arrest. The only reason this wouldn't be the case is Iran not having Nukes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- codedokode 2y ago
  How one country having "nukes" makes something more or less legal? I don't see the connection here. Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person. If critisizing Communist Party is a crime, it doesn't matter who commits it, everybody should be treated equally.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person Iran apprehending an American official crosses from criminality and law into the anarchy of geopolitics. For example, the fact that we have nukes is probably one among many considerations a foreign power might weigh when thinking about kidnapping the President.
surfingdino 2y ago
If the head of the CIA was chatting on Telegram, they ought to be able to subpoena the records.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  It's not just about Telegram though. It applies to any messaging app. Surely the head of the CIA uses some messaging app.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Government communications are typically exempt from subpoena by foreign courts. Telegram being available to the global audience would be in a different category. I doubt the head of the CIA uses it.
lovethevoid 2y ago
There is no logical inconsistency here. Durov, a citizen of France, failed to comply with their own country's process. This isn't a "random country" applied "for anyone".
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  But is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no You're proposing that France shouldn't be able to arrest the leader of a cartel or mafia if they file paperwork in Delaware?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Demanding logical consistency yet hiding behind the farce of incorporation state... does Telegram do business in France?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    One will find that countries don't really distinguish when it's one of their citizens taking action and those citizens are within the country's jurisdiction. Governments are funny like that. If I go to Germany and kill a man in the street, I might not end up under arrest if I go to, say, Russia, but if I go back to my home country? Yeah, they'd arrest me for a crime committed elsewhere in someone else's jurisdiction we're allied with.
  - af78 2y ago
    Telegram operates in France, this is sufficient. Edit: By "operates" I mean its services are accessible from France. If an entity cannot or will not comply with EU laws (e.g. GDPR) they can block clients from the EU. I regularly come across such websites with geoblocks (a few times a year).
    - 2y ago
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone Durov is a French citizen. He was arrested in France. This isn't a Kim Dotcom situation.
- rvnx 2y ago
  + for a service open on French soil.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The internet is globally accessible and that used to be considered a good thing. If France or the EU want to build a Chinese-style firewall to block unapproved parts of it, that’s up to them.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago

"rules for thee not for me" EU has been doing a lot of really bad stuff regarding the freedom of private communication recently (last few years), but they still manage to complain about others.

Der_Einzige 2y ago

If the head of the CIA stepped foot in Iran, you bet your butt that they'd be at serious risk of arrest. The only reason this wouldn't be the case is Iran not having Nukes.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
codedokode 2y ago
How one country having "nukes" makes something more or less legal? I don't see the connection here. Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person. If critisizing Communist Party is a crime, it doesn't matter who commits it, everybody should be treated equally.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person Iran apprehending an American official crosses from criminality and law into the anarchy of geopolitics. For example, the fact that we have nukes is probably one among many considerations a foreign power might weigh when thinking about kidnapping the President.

surfingdino 2y ago

If the head of the CIA was chatting on Telegram, they ought to be able to subpoena the records.

OutOfHere 2y ago
It's not just about Telegram though. It applies to any messaging app. Surely the head of the CIA uses some messaging app.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Government communications are typically exempt from subpoena by foreign courts. Telegram being available to the global audience would be in a different category. I doubt the head of the CIA uses it.

lovethevoid 2y ago

There is no logical inconsistency here. Durov, a citizen of France, failed to comply with their own country's process. This isn't a "random country" applied "for anyone".

OutOfHere 2y ago
But is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no You're proposing that France shouldn't be able to arrest the leader of a cartel or mafia if they file paperwork in Delaware?
- freejazz 2y ago
  Demanding logical consistency yet hiding behind the farce of incorporation state... does Telegram do business in France?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  One will find that countries don't really distinguish when it's one of their citizens taking action and those citizens are within the country's jurisdiction. Governments are funny like that. If I go to Germany and kill a man in the street, I might not end up under arrest if I go to, say, Russia, but if I go back to my home country? Yeah, they'd arrest me for a crime committed elsewhere in someone else's jurisdiction we're allied with.
- af78 2y ago
  Telegram operates in France, this is sufficient. Edit: By "operates" I mean its services are accessible from France. If an entity cannot or will not comply with EU laws (e.g. GDPR) they can block clients from the EU. I regularly come across such websites with geoblocks (a few times a year).
  - 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone Durov is a French citizen. He was arrested in France. This isn't a Kim Dotcom situation.

rvnx 2y ago
+ for a service open on French soil.
- philwelch 2y ago
  The internet is globally accessible and that used to be considered a good thing. If France or the EU want to build a Chinese-style firewall to block unapproved parts of it, that’s up to them.