[integralid]

I'm against any kind of censorship, chat scanning and privacy violations. Nevertheless:

>Telegram founder Pavel Durov warned that France risks societal collapse if it continues down a path of political censorship and regulatory overreach. Durov was arrested in France in August 2024 after being accused of failing to moderate his app to reduce criminality

Telegram is the messenger of choice for cybercriminals (not signal, interestingly). Most stealers and many other malware families use telegram to exfiltrate data and stolen credentials. It's also used as public announcement channels for criminal groups. Telegram ignores all reports about known malicious chats, despite it being easily provable, not to mention it's not e2e encrypted.

At this point this is not resisting censorship but knowingly profiting from crime. Continuing the analogy, it's like post office was sending mails for terrorists, despite police staying in the hallway and begging them to stop that.

(my job is related to anti-malware and cybercrime prevention)

[snarf21]

So there was no crime before Telegram? These kinds of things won't be used to stop malware or cybercrime anyway. They'll be used even more by those in power to subvert. The criminals will just move to another operating scheme.

[integralid]

Nice knee jerk reaction here (not just you, replies to me in general). We take down malicious domains and servers all the time. What's so special about group chats? As long as there is a proof it's used purely for criminal things and it's technically possible there is no excuse not to take them down.

The same applies in the physical world. Police has no right to enter your house. Except when they have a warrant, because you are already known to be guilty.

>The criminals will just move to another operating scheme.

Great! This is not an excuse to do nothing. They would use e2e if they were smart anyway. But they don't, because they like telegram and e2e is annoying to use (no channel history etc).

[snarf21]

I would argue that difference is that entering my group chat is the same as entering my house to install a listening device. If there is a warrant to tap someone's phone, that is based on probable cause not blanket surveillance. We don't shut down a bar just because some criminals hang out there.

Also, warrants are when there is evidence to suggest guilt. You are not known to be guilty. That is the point of the warrant, to collect more evidence to prove guilt.

[W3zzy]

It is a flex that will result in great pushbacks. If my government feels the need to monitor all my communication without proper reason I know they're only a step away from using my words against me.

I will oppose any government that outlaws encryption and privacy. There are numerous accounts of peoples personal info being misused for crime. More than there are proven cases of encryption being used by criminals.

[integralid]

I'm not sure I was understood. I explicitly explained my stance on encryption at the beginning.

I neither have nor want to have the capability to spy on telegram users. But criminal groups use telegram as infrastructure all the time - for example telegram webhook used as a exfiltration method for stolen credentials.

Telegram refuses to cooperate in any way, for example to close the group chat exfiltrated credentials go to, or even to disable the webhook.

This is analogous to Facebook knowingly letting ISIS use it for terrorist attack coordination. You can't just operate a company and ignore every abuse report.

[frm88]

Is undermining encryption in private messaging the right way to go about these issues tho? If telegram's and Facebook's non-cooperation in persecution of crime is the issue, why not address the corporations with legislation up to and including an EU wide ban instead of violating the privacy of 450M people? Is there something I'm missing?

[W3zzy]

I wasn't challenging you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[nemomarx]

I think the post office screening letters to be sure terrorists aren't sending them would also be pretty bad

[integralid]

It would. Maybe my analogy was flawed.

My point (which I probably explained badly) was that telegram ignores all abuse reports. As a company operating in the first world you can't really do that legally.

You probably don't want to die on the hill of defending telegram. If they really cared about privacy, they would push everything to e2e. Instead they absolutely know what people talk about. Even if they're 100% pure hearted and really never take a peek, three letter agencies from all over the world are probably less honorable.

[CJefferson]

While the post office didn't screen all letters, it was possible to get a warrant to read all the mail going to a certain address, and police often did that.

[graemep]

The UK recently introduced machine readable codes on postage stamps so they can now collect metadata on letters.

[rendaw]

If it's really illegal stuff, why can't the groups be taken down via legal channels? Providers shouldn't be in charge of doing extra-due-process punishment.

[integralid]

>why can't the groups be taken down via legal channels

I literally don't know, that's my whole point. Telegram ignores abuse reports and law enforcement and that's why CEO got into trouble.

I never suggested spying on telegram users or extrajudicial powers, and i abhor the idea.

[raxxorraxor]

Telegram has become a huge market for artists exchanging commissioned work. There are "eccentric" people on Telegram, but this is just FUD.

[aaomidi]

Then ban the app.

[integralid]

I don't want to ban a chat app loved by many people, and I think that would be an overreaction. I just want them to actually respect abuse reports and the letter of the law.