This is an unfair characterization of the issue. It’s more like the government asking to enter your home because they have evidence that you’ve been hosting known murderers for their “We love to murder people” social club. And when asked for permission to enter your response was, “these people have every right to talk about all the murders they’ve committed.”
Well not quite that either. I don’t know how to pack this up into a tidy analogy, but the issue is that some of these communication platforms have been designed in such a way that no record of the content can be accessed by a third party.
So maybe it’s more like, “Please give me a transcript of the keynote speech at your murderer’s convention,” and replying, “Sorry I don’t have a transcript.” And then the government further saying, “Well then you need to let us install bugs in all your rooms,” and you, the host of many different conventions reply, “No. Privacy is part of the service.” I have now belabored this analogy to death. You’re welcome.
It’s a twofold issue. One is that Telegram is operating an encrypted messaging platform that violates French law. That’s where I disagree with French law, messages should be allowed to be encrypted and the government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with it.
The other issue is the public communications that take place on Telegram that are facilitating horrible stuff like CSAM, animal abuse, and terrorism. This is well documented and I’ve seen two articles about Telegram’s horrible uses just today (see my comment for the other): https://dubvee.org/post/1782604
Telegram could provide a large majority of the communications. There are public channels and groups that anyone can view, a Telegram account isn’t needed. Even Telegram calls itself a “social media app” so it’s disingenuous to describe all of its communications as private. The issue is that they choose not to cooperate with governments, which violates the law. This is where I have a problem with Telegram. They should help law enforcement if they have access to the messages.
I say all this as an avid Telegram user. I really wish they would just encrypt all communications and force people to seek things out instead of allowing the horrible stuff to be publicly broadcast. That’s what Signal does. The real question is, why doesn’t Telegram?
It’d be like that if they actually bothered getting a warrant for any of this shit, but if you refuse to unlock a phone for them using biometrics they can charge you with blocking an investigation and then force you to do it anyways, so no.
It also gets much worse than that. Law Enforcement routinely treats “Get A Warrant” as less of a necessary step to preserve our liberties and require them to actually prove this use of investigative resources isn’t being wasteful or unnecessarily abridging people’s rights, and more as an annoyance that can and should be gotten around by any means necessary, rights of the public be damned, if they’re saying no they must be guilty!
This is an unfair characterization of the issue. It’s more like the government asking to enter your home because they have evidence that you’ve been hosting known murderers for their “We love to murder people” social club. And when asked for permission to enter your response was, “these people have every right to talk about all the murders they’ve committed.”
Well not quite that either. I don’t know how to pack this up into a tidy analogy, but the issue is that some of these communication platforms have been designed in such a way that no record of the content can be accessed by a third party.
So maybe it’s more like, “Please give me a transcript of the keynote speech at your murderer’s convention,” and replying, “Sorry I don’t have a transcript.” And then the government further saying, “Well then you need to let us install bugs in all your rooms,” and you, the host of many different conventions reply, “No. Privacy is part of the service.” I have now belabored this analogy to death. You’re welcome.
It’s a twofold issue. One is that Telegram is operating an encrypted messaging platform that violates French law. That’s where I disagree with French law, messages should be allowed to be encrypted and the government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with it.
The other issue is the public communications that take place on Telegram that are facilitating horrible stuff like CSAM, animal abuse, and terrorism. This is well documented and I’ve seen two articles about Telegram’s horrible uses just today (see my comment for the other): https://dubvee.org/post/1782604
Telegram could provide a large majority of the communications. There are public channels and groups that anyone can view, a Telegram account isn’t needed. Even Telegram calls itself a “social media app” so it’s disingenuous to describe all of its communications as private. The issue is that they choose not to cooperate with governments, which violates the law. This is where I have a problem with Telegram. They should help law enforcement if they have access to the messages.
I say all this as an avid Telegram user. I really wish they would just encrypt all communications and force people to seek things out instead of allowing the horrible stuff to be publicly broadcast. That’s what Signal does. The real question is, why doesn’t Telegram?
It’d be like that if they actually bothered getting a warrant for any of this shit, but if you refuse to unlock a phone for them using biometrics they can charge you with blocking an investigation and then force you to do it anyways, so no.
It also gets much worse than that. Law Enforcement routinely treats “Get A Warrant” as less of a necessary step to preserve our liberties and require them to actually prove this use of investigative resources isn’t being wasteful or unnecessarily abridging people’s rights, and more as an annoyance that can and should be gotten around by any means necessary, rights of the public be damned, if they’re saying no they must be guilty!