You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.12K Posts
- 78K Comments
- Modlog
You know you are an authoritarian country when you arrest CEOs of messaging apps.
But’s not just a messaging app. Telegram is a public forum (non-private and unencrypted btw) where they know crimes are being committed and are taking no action to mitigate them.
If you let people commit crimes in your house you are a criminal. If you own a mall and let people commit crimes in it, you are a criminal. If you own a boat and let people commit crimes in it you are a criminal. Same concept here. Pavel Durov created a public forum and not only allows crime to happen, but lies to people telling them its secure and private.
If I were a tinfoil wearing kind of person, I’d think Pavel was in on the whole thing and helping some 3-letter agency because Telegram has been a “privacy” scam from the beginning and it seems criminals are too dumb to realize they fell for playbook similar to Anom, just on a bigger scale.
Does that mean if you provide an E2EE service, you are a criminal too, because you let people to commit crimes on your platform, you’re just unable to see them? It’s like having a mall with no surveillance or security.
Nope! Not if you believe privacy is a human right.
It’s more like renting an apartment or office space and not being liable for crimes that you cannot see. Malls are generally viewed as a public space (think unencrypted chat rooms). If you own a Mall and have no surveillance and security and continue to allow crime to happen after you’ve been asked to remediate the issue, you are aiding criminals, much like Pavel and Telegram if you consider that Telegram is not encrypted and they have the ability to view everything going on in their platform.
Apartments and business offices are more like “encrypted” chat rooms. You can’t be held liable if you’re unable to see crimes being committed.
I feel like the difference is not that big, though.
If you rent, your landlord has a right to enter your apartment, even though they rarely use that right. Sometimes, they can check on things. The same applies to apartments in personal ownership: if police has a warrant, they can enter and see if there’s illegal activity. So based on this analogy, no, apartments are not “encrypted” chat rooms, and I don’t think any significant number of places would be considered “encrypted” or “fully private”, if you must.
Continuing with the analogy, Telegram can view and intervene in the activity on the platform, just like landlords or police, but Durov, let’s call him a landlord, protects privacy of his tenants, not letting the law enforcement in.
Speaking of E2EE platforms, I’m sure there’s crime happening on them, because it’s logical for criminals to use more secure protocols, yet I don’t see the same arguments made about them. It’s just they are providing the same (better!) tools to the criminals without an option for law enforcement to see the content (but perhaps with options to ban on request).
And frankly I don’t think there’s too big of a difference between E2EE and non-E2EE platforms in terms of conscience: the former just deliberately deprive themselves of an opportunity to see what content goes through their services.
P.S. that said, I don’t think it’s ok that Telegram promotes the service as private, and that Durov ignored requests to nuke known illegal activity.
But the difference is massive. Telegram, because E2EE does not work for the majority of its use cases, is hoarding tons of CSAM and other illegal content. This isn’t just about the “criminals” who are adding illegal content, its about Telegram’s access and hoarding of this data.
On the other hand, Signal is simply a transport vehicle for data. No illegal content is stored or accessible by Signal, its developers or anyone who may gain access to their infrastructure - the complete opposite of the situation over at Telegram. Signal cannot be implied to be storing illegal content because they simply don’t store any content. Law enforcement can ask Signal to provide all the data they have on specific users, and they have, but the only data they have is when you created your account and the last day (not time) a client pinged their servers.
All CEOs should be arrested actually.
Which country is not authoritarian by that measure?