Telegram Says CEO Durov Has 'Nothing To Hide' (bbc.com) 79
Messaging app Telegram has said its CEO Pavel Durov, who was detained in France on Saturday, has "nothing to hide." From a report: Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram. The app is accused of failure to co-operate with law enforcement over drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud.
Telegram said in a statement that "its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving." The app added: "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform." Telegram said Mr Durov travels in Europe frequently and added that it abides by European Union laws, including the Digital Services Act, which aims to ensure a safe and accountable online environment. "Almost a billion users globally use Telegram as means of communication and as a source of vital information," the app's statement read. "We're awaiting a prompt resolution of this situation. Telegram is with you all." Judicial sources quoted by AFP news agency say Mr Durov's detention was extended on Sunday and could last as long as 96 hours.
Telegram said in a statement that "its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving." The app added: "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform." Telegram said Mr Durov travels in Europe frequently and added that it abides by European Union laws, including the Digital Services Act, which aims to ensure a safe and accountable online environment. "Almost a billion users globally use Telegram as means of communication and as a source of vital information," the app's statement read. "We're awaiting a prompt resolution of this situation. Telegram is with you all." Judicial sources quoted by AFP news agency say Mr Durov's detention was extended on Sunday and could last as long as 96 hours.
EU proof of concept? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this the EU doing a PoC run on a smaller target as preparation for trying the same crap on X.com and Mr Musk? Or is it a different sort of complaint?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EU proof of concept? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatsapp does use the Signal protocol on messages themselves to have end-to-end encryption. So they can't read that by default. But other metadata - profile pic, profile display name, IP addresses, email address, what people are in a given group - that's all not E2EE on Whatsapp.
When a user reports a post as violating terms of service or the law on Whatsapp, the decrypted message on their device is sent unencrypted (transport level encryption to protect it while it gets to Facebook servers yes, but the actual messages themselves are decrypted) and Facebook can read it for content moderation. Then Facebook actually moderates the content, and depending on the scope, kills the group chat and warns/suspends/bans the users in it, and for serious legal issues, potentially proactively report it to authorities.
The end result is that Whatsapp can have people trying to scam or sell drugs, or sell malware, or phish, but Facebook actually acts on the reports they receive and responds to lawful requests. Telegram's issue is that they use cute tricks like putting servers with encryption keys and the servers that actually store the data in different countries to try to frustrate subpoenas, but they get reports of illegal content/activity on their services and then fail to act on it. That's why Durov is in the hotseat and Zucc is not.
Re: (Score:1)
How many reports are false positives, or politically motivated, or just targeting?
If you don't moderate anything, can you be responsible for anything, or are you like a printer who just takes in jobs and produces pages of text without even looking at them?
By US law, if you choose not to moderate anything, are you responsible for anything, or is it the responsibility of the aggrieved party to go after their target themselves, rather than go after you who provide the mere medium of the message?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean unlike Turkey which ordered Twitter to censor opposition candidates right before the eleciton and which the company rolled over and complied, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: EU proof of concept? (Score:2)
There must be fine people on both sides? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems very likely and not just in France or the EU. Commissioner Thierry Breton has previously been issuing veiled threats to Musk. This has set a dangerous precedent, where the owner of a platform can be jailed over the contents. This is a most chilling threat to free speech. It would be most interesting to see the outrage in the media. Or lack of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the EU seek to arrest Elmo?
No, just enforcing their laws. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What if you're attacking a particular medium for messages you don't like, and the messages will continue on other media that you don't even yet know about?
What apart from inconveniencing a lot of innocent users of a medium are you doing?
Isn't this all about asserting authoritative control and not about stopping criminals?
Is anyone else flashing back to War on Drugs propaganda? How has that turned out?
Re: (Score:2)
No, there are legitimate complaints here, and there have been for awhile. Follow the laws, even if you're a big company that makes money by skirting the laws. If the laws require moderation to keep out illegal content (such as child porn), then you have to follow the laws. If the government of the country where you live asks to see data to make sure you are complying with the law, then you have to comply.
Re: (Score:1)
Why isn't the government going after cameras for making child porn possible?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start with suggesting you wait for the actual indictment to come down. Part of being arrested and tried is having explicit charges laid against you. You're speculating wildly on why he was arrested, which isn't necessary. Why he was arrested will be made public knowledge within a week.
He's probably fleeing Russian influence (Score:5, Interesting)
Durov and Putin were both in Baku Azerbaijan this past week;Durov asked to meet Putin; Putin refused to meet him. [turan.az]
Right after this happens, Durov gets on a plane to France, knowing he has an arrest warrant against him [news-journal.com]. What sensible reason would someone have to fly to somewhere that he knows he's going to get arrested on arrival?
Combine the two facts - that Durov has said the Russian government has it in for him and Putin refused to meet with him - and that France will not extradite their own citizens to other countries - and you have the reason for Durov to fly to France knowing he will be arrested. He knows that he's on the outs with Putin's government, he went in for one last hail mary to try go buy favor back in with Putin. When Putin refused, he flew to France - where even if Russia fabricates some bullshit charges and demands France extradite Durov, they won't, because Durov is a French citizen.
Where these charges go, and if/to the extent that Durov cooperates with French authorities in giving them the data they want from Telegram remains to be seen. But make no mistake, it was a calculated move.
(People often refer to Telegram as an encrypted messenger; this is grossly misleading. Everyone and their mother uses transport level encryption these days. Telegram does not do End-to-End encryption [E2EE] except on secret chats. Secret chats are not on by default, and are not available in group chats - meaning the vast majority of content is able to be viewed on Telegram's servers by Telegram's employees. This is why the French are going after the service for openly hosting easy to find publicly searchable illegal content and refusing to moderate/act on it, and it's why Durov has a potentially huge bargaining chip in giving the French what they want in exchange for a deal. Even if Durov decides to be an idealist and stick to principles of not disclosing user data, the next person in charge of Telegram could decide that it's to their favor to cater to one or more international governments and surrender user data/messages surreptitiously.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's probably fleeing Russian influence (Score:4, Interesting)
Responding to the news, Russian journalist Alexander Sladkov said that Russia's military conducts half of its communications via the messaging app, and said an alternative must be created "urgently."
"Pavel Durov was arrested. This attack on the owner of [Telegram], on which half of the communications in the [war] are held, was expected. Now we urgently need to create a Russian military messenger," he wrote.
That a supposed military would use a third party for its communications channels is astounding. If there were any doubts remaining how pathetic the Russian military is, this seals the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
So that leaves Twitter! Perhaps they didn't want to pay Twitter for their blue checkmarks? Depending on the number of personnel to be 'verified' they probably saved a few rubles.
Re: (Score:2)
the vast majority of content is able to be viewed on Telegram's servers by Telegram's employees
Can you explain how this works when the server-side data is still encrypted? I want to understand.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that they keep the keys in a separate jurisdiction from the data to make forced decryption harder to mandate.
Re:He's probably fleeing Russian influence (Score:5, Informative)
1. Transport level encryption. This is the equivalent of an opaque armored truck pulling up to my home or office (my device using Telegram), I put an envelope with my letter (message) in it, the armored truck being locked, it drives to Telegram (their servers). At the point where the request reaches Telegram's office (servers), the truck is open - the request is open air. But that happens inside Telegram's network (within their server farm/intranet)
2. Disk level encryption. When the message reaches Telegram's infrastructure, they use a "secret splitting" system where a server with the encryption key encrypts the server, and then sends the decrypted data to another server in a different region. If, say, the server with the secret was in the UAE, and the server itself with the encrypted data was stored on is in Germany, a subpoena is useless in just one of those countries. The server with the message data is useless without the key; the key is useless if you don't have the data you want to decrypt in it. But Telegram's infrastructure has this key, the internet has no borders, and that decryption key in Telegrams infrastructure is what's used to decrypt data before you send it onwards to clients. Imagine that this is like Telegram's office having a massive safe, and a key is required to open it. Telegram possesses the safe, and they possess the key to open it and look at what's inside.
3. End-to-End Encryption, or E2EE. E2EE, the message is encrypted before it ever leaves my device, using key data that Telegram doesn't have, because it doesn't leave user devices. It'd be the equivalent instead of handing my letter directly to the armored truck to take to Telegram, I put it in a locked box and locked with a lock that only has keys that I and people in the chat have on our devices. Telegram is unable to look at messages encrypted with E2EE because the users possess the keys on their devices; Telegram does not. They can hold and move the lockbox around, but they can't open it without the key. Unfortunately, Telegram does not implement E2EE by default. Secret chats must be used manually, and cannot be used in group chats of three or more people.
#3 is what sets Signal and Telegram apart. Signal is 100% E2EE. Telegram is almost 100% not E2EE, most users do not manually turn on secret chats, and secret chats can't be used in group chats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for an excellent analogy. I understand Telegram vs Signal much better now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's probably fleeing Russian influence (Score:4, Insightful)
According to an unnamed police source who spoke to Reuters, investigators saw Durov’s name on a passenger list ahead of his private jet’s arrival.
Durov is a billionaire, and not an idiot; he's generally avoided travel to Europe. And the timing of him entering France, a country that won't extradite him, right after the leader of Russia who has not been a fan refused to meet with him is surely not a coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it ironic he gets arrested in free France
Question for those who know (Score:2)
If Telegram lacks the ability to view group chats due to their "globally fragmented key" setup (my paraphrase; I don't know what it's officially called), and if they claim they've shared 0 bytes due to the effectiveness of this arrangement, then what is France's case against Durov? Are they wanting to punish him A) simply for creating and maintaining enabling technology, or B) because they believe he has the ability to decrypt these group chats and refuses?
Both would be concerning, but A) especially so.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet means that for Telegram's ser
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the explanation. So it sounds like they make it difficult to be forced into cooperation, and there's a good chance they never had any intent of moderation for group chats and likely lack good tooling and personnel to accomplish it. But that wouldn't save them from prosecution, because the technical capability is there.
Re: (Score:1)
Does it bother no one that a government is ordering a private citizen to spy on his clients?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't this like depriving us all of air, because air carries sound signals that some government has decided is illegal? Why can't a provider be simple like the air and not look at anything, simply serving as a medium?
If you have a problem with the content of some messages, why isn't it your responsibility to track down the perp some other way? Why are you too lazy to get a warrant to spy on his house and listen to his phone taps?
Re: (Score:3)
That's difficult because of A, but they don't care. Because C is still against the law ( in France's view). You can't create technology that allows one to avoid compiling with the law and then claim you don't have to follow the law because of the technology you created.
Re: (Score:1)
What if the law is unconstitutional? Does anyone remember Voltaire saying "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it"? How about "Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité", does liberty include providing a medium for messages that you never have to read, and if you have a problem with the words being transmitted, you really need to find another way to go after the people saying those words?
Re: (Score:2)
The law could have been challenged before offering service in the country.
Nothing to hide (Score:2)
Yes, he has nothing to hide. We all know it is a favorite messaging app for criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Telegram gets groups reported for drug dealing, selling malware, selling stolen credit card data, governments and people report them, and Telegram not only refuses to act on said reports (ban the group, ban the people in it), they don't share any informatio
Re: (Score:2)
Telegram gets groups reported for drug dealing, selling malware, selling stolen credit card data, governments and people report them, and Telegram not only refuses to act on said reports (ban the group, ban the people in it), they don't share any information back. At which point, they are accessories.
Based on what legal theory and more importantly in what jurisdiction?
Re: (Score:3)
In general? It would be accessory [wikipedia.org]. This applies a lot in English law. In France, it would be article 121-7:
The accomplice to a felony or misdemeanor is the person who, by aiding or abetting, facilitates its preparation or commission. Any person who, by means of a gift, promise, threat, order or an abuse of authority or powers, provokes the commission of an offence or gives instructions to commit it, is also an accomplice. It follow
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>I am not satisfied by your answer and see citing legal code without explaining why you think it is applicable as a misdirection. What I wanted to hear from you is an explanation why you think providing a communication service to the public makes one an accessory to any crime that was discussed.
The point at which you become aware a crime was committed and do nothing about it.
>What I wanted to hear from you is an explanation why you think providing a communication service to the public makes one an ac
Re: (Score:2)
In general, warning/suspension/ban of the user from the platform and banning of the group chat violating the law would show intent to prevent that person/group from using the platform to advance criminal activity again. Telegram could not stop someone from getting a new phone number and then re-registering...
Why does show of intent matters when you admit that requested action would be ineffective? What if they posted "Please don't do crime" click-through every time log in, would that be sufficient show of intent?
There is no universal definition of illegal activity, as it largely depends on jurisdiction. For example, in Russia it is illegal to refer to invasion of Ukraine as anything but 'special military operation' and many people went to jail for long time for that. Would you like Telegram to enforce that ille
Re: (Score:2)
Bare minimum? It disrupts the groups. You can't prevent Joe and his drug distributor Dave from giving out a new handle. You can prevent a group of up to 200,000 people on Telegram from exchanging illegal material and contacts.
>There is no universal definition of illegal activity, as it largely
Re: (Score:2)
You can either make yourself aware of how to comply, or make it structurally so you are unable to, completely technically comply.
You do understand that "compliance" is the problem in both scenarios? Also, how likely do you think 'unable to comply' will remain an option?
Re: (Score:1)
Why should we, the people, support the government compelling compliance over what are really simply symbols? Why can't the government find other ways of enforcing its laws that don't remove privacy from the vast majority of users who are not criminals? Why do you trust the French government so much? Can they make mistakes? How many false positives cause people problems that they should not have to go through, due to government overzealousness? Why should we support the government forcing compliance over com
Re: (Score:1)
What if the war on free speech is as futile as the War on Drugs?
Re: (Score:1)
Did we just spot the statist?
The process is the punishment (Score:3)
Low probability of prosecution is not the point of this undertaking - the point is to increase perceived costs to refusing to "voluntarily" cooperate with the intelligence apparatus.
Re: (Score:1)
Talk about a persecution complex
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think so. Telegram KNOWS there is crime going on, they are asked to do more moderation, which is something they can do despite complaints that they can't (can be done, just would cost money and drive away business). Diffie can't be convicted here because he was not involved in the company and has no access to unencrypted data and was not asked to monitor the data.
Re: (Score:1)
Who moderates the air? Why can't Telegram model the air, which transmits evil signals without moderation? What if government is overreaching by demanding every communication be moderated? What if that is literally Big Brother, which we have been warned against? Why are you supporting the continued expansion of the surveillance powers of the state? Were you personally hurt by some Telegram scam?
Apps are speaking for themselves now? (Score:2)
Messaging app Telegram has said its CEO Pavel Durov, who was detained in France on Saturday, has "nothing to hide."
The app said that? Holy AI, batman.
I tried to submit a story recently, about how cryptocurrency corporations have contributed more in this election cycle than all other corporate donations combined, and asked if this was undue influence on our process. The submit page errored out and wouldn't accept the story, after several minutes of spinning.
Slashdot has gone sadly to shit.
I haven't had that experience at /. (Score:2)
Re: I haven't had that experience at /. (Score:2)
Talking to you? I guess I'll stop that.
French authorities? (Score:2)
I'd really appreciate if someone could help out with a first hand source from the French authorities on this. I (not French-speaking) have tried but not come up with anything. I'd like to know exactly what they say on why Durov is being detained. I don't expect there to be anything more than a press release but I'd like to see it.
Re: (Score:1)
There's already another story for this on the front page, and someone posted it in the comment thread for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Macrons comment that the political branch had nothing to do with it is a bit less than I expected, but as another poster suggested it may be all there is.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a statement from macron stating that this was a judicial decision without political involvement.
That's probably all you're going to get since I imagine like the US DOJ they do not comment to the media about ongoing investigations.
Without knowing French law specifically but if it's anything like US law If they are detaining him they will either release him shortly or charge him and those charges will be made public.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I my part of the world freedom of information access is quite strong so it may very well be that I'm expecting something that doesn't exist in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US it get's a little hairy since 90% of the crimes are state level and state agencies have differing rules on information that is released.
Example is I live in Florida, here there is a called "The Sunshine Law" where a lot of public information is released immediately including some things related to criminal cases (your mugshot in Florida is public info pretty much immediately) and why you see so many "Florida Man" stories. In other states there are more rules about when and how this info goes out
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the issue is that releasing this info early can and does hurt the actual cases when they get to court. However there are many people who feel that they must win in the court of public opinion even though the public opinion does not decide whether someone goes to prison or not. Thus major politician who keeps talking to the news about his defense but screws up the defense when court is in session. Many companies would just say "no comment" in such a situation, as that's the smartest thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks ofr asking, I searched and I just posted the detailed accusations in the more recent thread. Here is the link, https://www.tribunal-de-paris.... [justice.fr] you can paste the contents in google translate, or you read my poor translation there https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Many thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for!
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the document has been updated since your first post as it now includes an official English translation.
"We didn't burn him!" (Score:2)
Telegram Committed Financial Crimes Too? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What if the government could find plenty of fraud within its own glass house before going around throwing stones?
Durov has nothing to hide. (Score:2)
Terrorism (Score:2)
Mr Durov's detention was extended on Sunday and could last as long as 96 hour
96 hours means the prosecutor considers this is a terrorism case. It is quite common noowadays, and it is a shame to handle citizen like that. It is not worse because the citizen is the Telegram CEO, but it helps making the situation more visible for everyone. Yes, they can detain you for 96 hours with very little reason.