What are you on about?
Yes you do. Why are you shouting about matrix attacks? What does that have to do with the discussion.
Founder of telegram arrested in france
- Thread starter sx_turbo
- Start date
I'm always sceptical when it comes to reporting especially when it comes to technology. Do we know Telegram refuses to take any steps WRT the public or private messaging part of its platform, if it's the former then there's an argument that they're not doing enough to remove publicly available illegal content, if it's the latter then there's really not much they can do.
Nope I think that is a secondary reason for why you support this and like I said the Child porn stuff is a trojan horse. I see you are trying to reframe my post so you could inclucde a quippy ending remark.Trying to prevent child porn being distributed and expecting these platforms to aid authorities in identifying perpetrators is irrationalTbh your post sounds irrational.
You bringing this up unprompted, seems to show that the association with Russia appears to have influenced your support of France's actions. I have no proof but I reckon that is your main reason for supporting this.
Soldato
According to reports, they refuse/ignore requests to join or report things to organisations such as the IWF and other organisations:
SOURCE
I am cynical and suspicious of people using the Terrorism and Child Protection arguments to push agendas however, in the case of Telegram, they really dont help themselves or the wider E2EE arguments with respect to surveillance.
EDIT:
Trying to prevent child porn being distributed and expecting these platforms to aid authorities in identifying perpetrators is irrational
And this is where I have a problem with it... Arguments like above are skirting the accusation of child abuse towards people just because they argue against the topic of surveillance on E2EE.
Last edited:
IMO if what they're being asked to report content that's meant to be private then they should refuse/ignore such request, if that content is public on the other hand it's fair game but then the only real thing the authorities would need are details, if any, of who posted it.
Basically private content should remain private.
Soldato
The IWF and other organisations keep lists of CSAM that they are made aware of via various methods (actively looking for it, stuff reported to them etc). They make hashes of the images/videos etc and this is used to detect CSAM easier online including by other platforms.
I think part of the issue is that Telegram refuse to work with these organisations to help them collate and therefore hash new CSAM even when the CSAM is reported to Telegram i.e. made public to them. These new hashes could then be used by other platforms to identify and remove this CSAM from their own platforms so it could be seen as Telegram being obstructive in these instances.
This is my thinking behind it but, until more info is released by French authorities, we cant be sure exactly what they are looking at.
Last edited:
Commissario
That is my guess.
IIRC all the "social media" platforms over a certain size are expected to have policies and staffing in place to deal with certain legal obligations, and one of the most basic ones that is common across pretty much the entire western world is enforcement of the laws regarding CSAM.
So if Telegram is not taking action about CSAM when it is technically able to (IE if it's posted in one of their "public" areas), once they've been made aware of it then the likes of law enforcement are likely to take a very dim view of it, likewise if Law enforcement have a warrant or similar for a users IP address/other information that the service has and is technically able to provide but just ignore it then the bosses are going to get into trouble.
Soldato
Your emails are private aren't they? Your telephone calls and text messages are private. Are you saying the State shouldn't be able to gain access to any of this is they suspect you of criminal activity? With a court order and as long as the law is applied correctly you have to allow the State to gain access to such content. Sending illegal content by private message shouldn't put it beyond the law.
Soldato
People are allowed more than one reason you know. If people are suspected of breaking the law in this country then as long as the law is followed no platform should be beyond the reach of the law here.
Yes I think Telegram is being used by the Russian state to aid its war in Ukraine. That isn't the reason I think these platforms have gone way past what the protections of Section 230 and similar legislation was designed for. Your phone can be tapped, your emails read, your browser history searched with a court order. Why should this platform be any different? And if these platforms refuse to play ball these should be consequences for the owners. No social media company should have more power than sovereign states.
UAE aren't very happy with France and have pulled a 20 billion dollar contract for french army aircraft.
This whole thing is very odd and very french.. but I can see both sides of the coin, still on the fence to where I sit
This whole thing is very odd and very french.. but I can see both sides of the coin, still on the fence to where I sit
You would think so, I reported blatant racism on a post the other day and I got the response back that it met their terms and conditions.
No. Targeted requests directed at people suspected of criminal activity is perfectly fine, but we're not talking about that.
The vast, in fact AFAIK the only way, an anonymous online person would be suspected of criminal activity is if you monitored all anonymous people, think about it. To suspect something, to think or believe something to be true or probable, you need some sort of evidence because there should be a presumption of innocences.
If you suspect someone of criminal activity then you either already know who that person is or what the criminal activity is, in other words the only way you can know that is if you've heard or seen something that lead you to think or believing that. The thinking or believing something to be true or probable comes before the request to listen/read private content, not before.
e: Put it this way: What is the probable cause that you (the authorities) have for wanting to access the private content of an anonymous online person?
Last edited:
Yes I know which is why I used the words “secondary” and “main”. To differentiate between the two reasons. Try actually reading what I wrote.
I’m not sure why you decided to monologue your love for giving the state more control (as that had nothing to do with my point) but if you feel so strongly about it you can always book yourself a one way ticket to China then since you want to live in an authoritarian country. Just to get a taste for what it’s like.
Last edited:
Soldato
If you know that user has say sent illegal imagery to another user then there is your probable cause. You now should be able to gain access to everything that platform has on that user, their IP etc. Or that person has been in contact with a known terrorist that is suspected of planning an attack, that would likely be enough in many jurisdictions to gain a warrant.
It seems with this guy that he refuses to moderate any content and not work with authorities if they want details on certain users. I'm not suggesting authorities should be able to read content at will but with an court authorised warrent.
Soldato
LOL the old "go live in China" line. The state can already read your emails, text messages and listen to your call with a warrant. Why should messaging apps be any different? Unless you don't think they should be able to do any of that in which case this conversation is pointless.
Right, but how do you know that they've done that?
Soldato
Well its at least a 2 person event right? Maybe the other person grasses them up.
Also Telegram isn't just a DM platform, there are channels with thousands of users in them, some are likely with illegal content. If law enforcement manage to get into that channel then they can monitor it and they'll have probable cause on everyone who takes part. You agree that at that point a platform should be handing over all the information they have on those people? And that isn't even taking into account that channels with illegal content aren't being shut down by the platform.
Implicating them in a crime, doubtful. Is it safe to assume that as that's the only example you can think of that you agree there is no probable cause, that there are no other reasons for the authorities to have access the private content of an anonymous online person. That the only reason they'd need a service provider to supply them with the details of a user is if they had already breached that persons right to privacy.
I thought I'd already addressed that point when i said this...
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 400
Presumably they will be arresting the creators of the TOR network too.
On facebook some local idiot on a city page was threatening me with physical violence a few months back.
Facebook wouldn't even do as little as removing his public post making threats.... basically a waste of time reporting
CIA funded that, or at least the US gov.
you know where else is child porn etc... in peoples homes, maybe we should stick a web cam in every room.
no one has a right to privacy because there's a 0.01% chance they could be a pedo
[/sarcasm]
Last edited: