Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

One detail that's missing from the English article is why he got arrested.

The French article mentions:

Why was he under threat of a search warrant?

The Justice considers that the absence of moderation, cooperation with law enforcement and the tools offered by Telegram (disposable numbers, cryptocurrencies...) makes him an accomplice to drug trafficking, child-crime offenses and swindling.




Does this mean that according to EU, or France, E2E-encrypted platforms need to "cooperate" (provide backdoors)?

Or does it refer to public channels only?


> Does this mean that according to EU, or France, E2E-encrypted platforms need to "cooperate" (provide backdoors)?

No, not yet.

> Or does it refer to public channels only?

On Telegram channels and groups are not E2EE. I'd assume that's were most of the crap is spread.


Private messages aren’t end-to-end encrypted either. The so-called secret chats are end-to-end encrypted but are a major pain to use. I doubt that feature sees much use.


Yes, private messages can be E2EE. But as you say, they're a hassle (no sync between devices as an example).


As said before: the whole E2E, CSAM diskussion is not really the issue here. This is afaik about complying mostly to very specific takedown requests (as telegram offers no legal address inside the EU) and more general platform regulations that require mechanisms to prevent illegal content. Telegram does not offer any E2E encrypted group chat and actually actively interferes in groups by pushing advertisements, so they should be able to also block illegal content.

Having said that I am no fan of installing law enforcement inside private companies. However, telegrams noncompliance with court orders is problematic particularly related to protecting human rights of 3rd parties in the digital age.


It means complying with an order from a judge. Just like every other social media or really any form of communications (including emails, phone calls, letters) that operate in France (and in the EU) do.


It means the post office is next, followed by the phone company.


If you think the governments of the world do not have the metadata of every single phone call and at the very least an outside picture of every letter being sent by non-companies, then I have a boat te sell you.


There is a legal process, though, at least in the USA.

You can get a warrant (a court order) to open a piece of mail, and the USPS isn't going to refuse to hand it over.

[technically they could, but someone would get stuck with contempt of court charges]


The post office and the phone company refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and offer disposable phone numbers and means to move money without trace/attribution?


The phone company has long cooperated with government. And while I’ve never heard of anything, the post office _is_ owned by the government in the US.


Just because he is the CEO doesn’t mean he is directly liable. The company is a separate entity. I don’t see anyone arresting Elon or other CEOs because of “not enough moderation.” Most actions are to block platform access. There must be something else for sure.


Twitter doesn't encrypt messages, so there is indeed no chance of that happening - after all the reasoning for this arrest is fundamentally inapplicable to Twitter.

It's however a very very very slippery slope to prosecute someone for providing the tools to hold encrypted communication, just because this is also used by criminals. A lot of privacy oriented services would probably have to exit France if this holds up


by default telegram doesn't encrypt anything. I'm not sure if you where implying that telegram had encryption and therefore hiding illicite activities.

The problems is the huge telegram channels spreading hacks and illicite tricks.

There is no such threats against Signal which is way more privacy oriented. (except for some new laws in UK where Signal said if they are applied, they would withdraw from the UK market:https://fortune.com/2023/07/13/signal-president-mass-surveil...


I don’t know in France, but at least in Italy companies are not a shield for penal responsibility; crimes are always committed by persons. If a company does something criminal, someone is responsible for that decision within the company, and that could be the CEO.


CEOs can be liable for intentional or grossly negligent non-compliance, among other things.


Owning a company providing a secure communication product is not negligent nor non-compliance.


> non-compliance

It depends to what they're being asked to be compliant with.


This is really out of scope for this case though. Most of what is discussed in this case is about public, unencrypted channels


Seems like that's just become up for legal clarification.


Elon Mustk is a very important person; Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Twitter. He provides services to the military with the Starlink and he is deeply connected to the state with SpaceX.

On the other hand Pavel Durov is "homeless". He is like a normal citizen.


If a court orders twitter to take down a tweet, and twitter doesn't comply, then I believe anybody that is responsible for that inaction, including Elon if he was aware and didn't act may be tried


> TF1 and BFM both said the investigation was focused on a lack of moderators on Telegram, and that police considered that this situation allowed criminal activity to go on undeterred on the messaging app.

(From the reuters link)


So they're going for the ISPs too, then? Considering the drug traffickers, child crime offenders and swindlers were actually paying the ISPs, NOT telegram.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: