vinegarWe've reached a point where the CEO of a major social network is being arrested and detained. This is a big change, and it happened in a way that nobody expected. From Jennifer Rankin in Brussels:
French judicial authorities on Sunday extended the detention of Telegram's Russian-born founder. Pavel DurovHe was arrested at Paris airport on suspicion of misconduct related to the messaging app.
Once this detention phase is over, the judge can decide whether to release the defendant or to charge him or her and detain him further.
French investigators had issued a warrant for Durov's arrest as part of an investigation into charges of fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, promoting terrorism and cyberbullying.
Durov, who holds French citizenship in addition to the United Arab Emirates, St. Kitts and Nevis and his native Russia, was arrested as he disembarked from a private jet after returning from the Azerbaijan capital, Baku, on Sunday evening. Telegram released a statement::
⚖️ Telegram complies with EU law, including the Digital Services Act, and its moderation is within industry standards and is constantly being improved.
✈️ Telegram CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently to Europe.
😵💫 It is absurd to claim that the platform or its owners are responsible for misuse of their platform.
French authorities said on Monday that Durov's arrest was part of a cybercrime investigation.
Paris prosecutor Laure Vecuot said the investigation concerns crimes related to illegal trading, child sexual abuse, fraud and refusal to provide information to authorities.
On the surface, the arrests seem decidedly different from previous years. Governments have had tough talk with messaging platform providers in the past, but arrests have been few and far between. Often, when platform operators are arrested, as in the cases of Silk Road's Ross Ulbricht and Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, authorities can argue that the platforms would not have existed without the crimes.
Telegram has long operated as a lightly moderated service, partly because of its roots as a chat app rather than a social network, partly because of Durov's own experience dealing with Russian censors, and partly (as many argue) because it is simply cheaper to have fewer moderators and less direct control over the platform.
But even if a company's moderation team's weaknesses can expose it to fines under laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act or the EU's Digital Services Act, they rarely lead to personal charges, and even less to executives being jailed.
Encryption
But Telegram has one feature that makes it slightly different from its peers, such as WhatsApp and Signal: the service is not end-to-end encrypted.
WhatsApp, Signal and Apple's iMessage are built from the ground up to ensure that content shared on the services cannot be read by anyone other than the intended recipient, including not only the companies that run the platforms but also law enforcement agencies that may be called upon to cooperate.
This has caused endless friction between the world's largest tech companies and the governments that regulate them, but for now, it seems the tech companies have won the main battle: No one is seriously calling for end-to-end encryption to be banned anymore, and regulators and critics are instead calling for messaging services to be monitored differently, with approaches such as “client-side scanning.”
Telegram is different. The service offers end-to-end encryption through a little-used opt-in feature called “Secret Chats,” but by default, conversations are encrypted only enough to be unreadable by anyone connected to your Wi-Fi network. To Telegram itself, messages sent outside of “Secret Chats” (including all group chats, and all messages and comments in one of the service's broadcast “channels”) are effectively unencrypted.
This product decision sets Telegram apart from the pack, yet oddly enough, the company's marketing suggests that the difference is almost the exact opposite. Cryptography expert Matthew Green:
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov continues to aggressively promote the app as a “secure messenger.” issued a scathing criticism He blocked Signal and WhatsApp in his personal Telegram channel, suggesting that these systems were rigged with US government backdoors and that only Telegram's independent encryption protocol could truly be trusted.
Watching Telegram urge people to forego using a messenger that's encrypted by default while refusing to implement a key feature that would broadly encrypt messages for its own users is no longer amusing. In fact, it's starting to feel a bit sinister.
I can't v won't
The result of Telegram's mismatch between technology and marketing is a disappointing one: The company, and Durov personally, are selling the app to people who worry that even the gold standards of secure messengers — WhatsApp and Signal — aren't secure enough for their needs, especially from the U.S. government.
At the same time, if the government were to knock on Telegram's door and ask for information about actual or suspected criminals, Telegram would not have the same security as other services. End-to-end encrypted services could honestly tell law enforcement that they could not cooperate. In the long run, this could easily create a rather hostile atmosphere, but the conversation could also become a general conversation about privacy and policing principles.
Telegram, by contrast, is faced with a choice: cooperate with law enforcement, ignore it, or declare that it will not actively cooperate. This is no different from the choice facing the vast majority of online companies, from Amazon to Zoopla, except that Telegram's user base is the only one that demands security from law enforcement.
Every time Telegram says “yes” to police, it infuriates its user base; every time it says “no,” it plays a game of chicken with law enforcement.
The contours of the differences between France and Telegram will inevitably be swamped in conversations about “content moderation” and supporters will rally around it accordingly (Elon Musk has already weighed in, saying, “#FreePavel“) But the conversations are usually about publicly available material and what X or Facebook should or shouldn't do to moderate the discussion on their sites. Private messaging services and group messaging services are fundamentally different services, which is why mainstream end-to-end encrypted services exist. But by trying to straddle both markets, Telegram may have lost both defenses.
Final Question
My last day at the Guardian is fast approaching and next week's emails will be handed over to you, the reader. If you have a question you'd like an answer to, a doubt that's been simmering in the back of your mind for years, or are just curious about the inner workings of Techscape, please reply to this email or get in touch with me directly at alex.hern@theguardian.com. Ask me anything.
If you'd like to read the full newsletter, sign up to receive TechScape in your inbox every Tuesday.
Source: www.theguardian.com
