4 ms·

> France has proven capable of blocking services. They can't block this if it's so damaging to the French republic? If their logging/encryption violate the law

> France has proven capable of blocking services. They can't block this if it's so damaging to the French republic? If their logging/encryption violate the law, I would expect them to be removed from the app store before arresting the CEO. So I think we can assume this is not the case or the company has failed to prove this is the case, which makes my original point more valid. Telegram itself isn't what the French government has a problem with it, it is specific behaviors of the executive team. *Edited to clarify my argument.

akira2501 2y ago
> which makes my point more valid. Your assumptions cannot make your point more valid. The difference between your assumptions and our total lack of information is what gives me pause, personally. > it is specific behaviors of the executive team. Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  > Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives. This assumption, given our total lack of information, gives me pause. It is not (and should not be) unusual to arrest an executive for willful violation of local laws by the company they own and lead. I think we are at an impasse, we both are going to build this off of a different set of assumptions and priors which make our conclusions incompatible without more information. Fortunately, France cannot make him disappear indefinitely without the information becoming public enough for us to draw our own, more informed conclusions.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    I assume on behalf of citizens against government as a matter of policy. If you've not been targeted by the government before you might not understand this position. The government has all the advantages, massive resources, sweeping extralegal powers and and the end of the day they've seemingly abandoned all of that to target a CEO on a layover. I don't personally like this guy or his company. I'm sure there's something wrong with how they are operating. I still cannot give the French or any other government the benefit of the doubt here.

akira2501 2y ago

> which makes my point more valid. Your assumptions cannot make your point more valid. The difference between your assumptions and our total lack of information is what gives me pause, personally. > it is specific behaviors of the executive team. Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives.

eightysixfour 2y ago
> Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives. This assumption, given our total lack of information, gives me pause. It is not (and should not be) unusual to arrest an executive for willful violation of local laws by the company they own and lead. I think we are at an impasse, we both are going to build this off of a different set of assumptions and priors which make our conclusions incompatible without more information. Fortunately, France cannot make him disappear indefinitely without the information becoming public enough for us to draw our own, more informed conclusions.
- akira2501 2y ago
  I assume on behalf of citizens against government as a matter of policy. If you've not been targeted by the government before you might not understand this position. The government has all the advantages, massive resources, sweeping extralegal powers and and the end of the day they've seemingly abandoned all of that to target a CEO on a layover. I don't personally like this guy or his company. I'm sure there's something wrong with how they are operating. I still cannot give the French or any other government the benefit of the doubt here.