[mrtksn]

Removing/blocking apps deprives users who benefit from these apps. That's the actual freedom violation but for some reason a lot of people are ready to accept it as solution. It's very sad actually.

Just lock up the people responsible for the problems, why would you deprive people from the products the use?

A future I want to live is a future where offenders get punished, not a future where I'm dissolved of using products that offenders used to offend.

[skeledrew]

The practical effect of locking up "the people responsible" though (if there's any actual guilt), at least in this case, would deprive people of the product: Durov is the key person for basically all things re Telegram, so his not being available to take care of said things would lead to its eventual death.

[mrtksn]

Maybe, maybe not? If it happens that Durov ends in prison for a long time I imagine that there would be interest to take over the product since its actually a good and successful one.

[skeledrew]

Take it over how when it's very possible that only Durov has access to some of the more important keys?

[diggan]

> A future I want to live is a future where offenders get punished, not a future where I'm dissolved of using products that offenders used to offend.

So with that said, you're actually against the arrest of Pavel Durov as I understand it? As he's being arrested for not committing any crimes, but for not giving information about the people who are committing the actual crimes.

[mrtksn]

I'm not against or for his arrest categorically. If his actions caused harm, he should be punished but I don't know if his actions caused harm. Regardless, unless the app itself does something nefarious, like exfiltrating user data on the client side, it should not be banned.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

Aiding and abetting are crimes.

[krick]

Sure, but then don't blame the app, because exactly as the gp stated: you cannot have the cake and eat it too.

I mean, I don't want it to sound simplistic. Situation is kinda novel (meaning, it wasn't possible 200 years ago). Basically every POV in this entire discussion makes sense to me. Like, it absolutely makes sense for a government to be hostile to somebody who doesn't comply with their requests, and given that in this situation that somebody happens to be a french citizen... well, it's almost like he was asking for it.

But regardless of what reasoning I could provide in behalf of the opposing side, my personal desire is that all governments and all courts to go fuck themself when it is about providing users data. I truly make no exceptions for that, it doesn't make me sympathetic if a user allegedly distributes child porn in a private conversation, or if he is a terrorist and disclosed a location of a nuclear bomb to his partner. I mean it. Because the exceptions where you could convince me it's necessary are very-very rare, and courts' ability to abuse it if there can be any exceptions at all is infinite. And it should be obvious that I don't trust any courts or government to do the right thing, and it truly scares me (but I accept it as a fact, because if all people would become enlightened it probably would truly mean total chaos) that so many people do.

But, of course, again, the only way to truly ensure that is non-backdoored E2EE, and it's not even clear if such a thing even exists...

[mrtksn]

Right, my position is that being a revolutionary or a renegade is not a right, doesn't have to be safe, it doesn't have to be easy and if someone chooses to do it they should assume the associated risks with it as they are bound to collect the rewards.

The French government has a certain ruleset and powers and an agenda, if He is going to take on the French government its fine by me its just that the hazard associated with that is expected. I don't have a beef it this, unless there's a spying for Russia stuff. Then I would be like "lock down this hack, take away his fortune to pay for the damages" but I still wouldn't advocate for blocking Telegram.

[eightysixfour]

> But regardless of what reasoning I could provide in behalf of the opposing side, my personal desire is that all governments and all courts to go fuck themself when it is about providing users data. I truly make no exceptions for that, it doesn't make me sympathetic if a user allegedly distributes child porn in a private conversation, or if he is a terrorist and disclosed a location of a nuclear bomb to his partner. I mean it.

This is an interesting stance to me, because throughout modern history I'm not aware of any budiness/entity that did not have an obligation to turn over information as a result of a court order other than information under attorney client privilege. Encrypted data is actually the odd one out, other than not collecting information in the first place, in that most things can be compelled.

The only time I have an issue with the courts having power to order someone to hand over information is when those orders are done secretly. There must be accountability.