Telegram founder and CEO arrested in France The founder and CEO of made-in-Russia messaging app Telegram, Pavel Durov, was arrested in France on Saturday – and subjected to further detention the next day – apparently over his company's alleged failure to follow content moderation laws and assist with several criminal investigations. News of Durov's arrest was first …
Be very careful about what you are wishing for.
Ok , Musk first and then who Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg.
I don't particularly care for any of these people but they are providing servicers which I can use quite freely. If any govt or 3LA starts cracking down on what can and cannot be said then we are heading straight for a dictatorship, and no-one wants to live through that.
It's one thing to be ideological but one has to remember that that very ideology will eventually be used against you by those at the top.
If Durov is being held responsable for the actions of Telegrams users, then should God/The Pope be held responsable for the actions of their followers. Should Bill Gates be help responsable for the platform on which Telegram can run, should Linus Torvalds be held responsable for Kali and the possibility that we can hide our actions ?
Be very, very careful, you will get bitten very hard for what you are wishing for. There is no end to the madness to which you aspire, it will only end in a lose/lose situation for all.
But where do you draw the line? Can you hold the owner of a phone company responsible for what someone says in a phone call? The owner of the Post Office for the contents of a letter it carries? What about the situation where the 'owner' of a publicly-traded platform is its shareholders?
It's not necessary to get into the phone company/Post Office argument as this is about groups and channels, not 1:1 chats.
This can be treated just the same way as if Craigslist, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other board/social media of that type refused to cooperate, and that's before we get into Telegram allowing users to create bots which can take payments.
What makes you think this is not about 1:1 chats?
And what makes a 3-person chat, or a 10-person chat or a 100-person chat different from a 2-person chat?
What makes 20 people discussing something in a church hall they have rented different from 20 people discussing the same thing in an online group?
The vital principle is that the venue providers should not have a requirement to record all the conversations that happen in their church hall, keep the recordings and give them to the police when asked later. Any snooping must be done with a warrant, and be before the chat takes place - not a general requirement to retain everything in case it is useful to the police later.
What makes you think this is not about 1:1 chats?
Because French police sources said this is about groups and channels that push drug trafficking, fraud, money laundering, and CSAM amongst other things.
The vital principle is that the venue providers should not have a requirement to record all the conversations that happen in their church hall, keep the recordings and give them to the police when asked later.
That makes no sense considering this is about Telegram groups and channels where Telegram already keeps a copy of everything and allows users to set up bots which take payment.
Telegram cooperates with law enforcement so badly that they were considered an accessory to crimes in France and so he was brought in based on the pre-existing warrant.
Did you honestly think that anyone has the right to set up a board or a social media network which facilitates crimes of this nature on such a scale and refuses to cooperate with police or the judiciary? Eventually there are countries which will get tired of it and take action.
Did you honestly think that anyone has the right to set up a board or a social media network which facilitates crimes of this nature on such a scale and refuses to cooperate with police or the judiciary?
Have you told that to the operators of the road network? The road network is not required to track and record everyone who uses it just in case the police want to know afterwards. Even though the vast majority of crimes involve using a road and roads facilitate vastly more serious crimes than any social network does. If the police want to track people using the road they have to use their own people to do it.
Co-operation with the police for a large meeting does not mean recording the conversations of all the people who come to your meeting. If I rent the NEC to hold a prayer meeting for 100,000 people, there is no requirement to record the meeting just in case the police want to listen to it afterwards. If the police want to pay the entry fee and attend, that is fine. I might even (at my own choice) waive the fee for them if they convince me some delegates will be discussing serious crimes. But if they can't be bothered to join the session, or find a delegate willing to talk to them afterwards, they have no right to know what was discussed.
I don't think this is about what could be, but rather about what has happened - and remember, in order to get such a case going you need to provide plausible evidence.
When you operate in a country you need to abide by its laws. If you CAN abide but choose not to, I'm sorry, but then you're asking for consequences and it appears they have arrived in this case.
It's also not said that Telegram is able to identify individuals, but it could have logfiles and other meta information, and it most certainly has the ability to shut down unwanted channels when asked (they'll just pop up elsewhere, of course, but that's not the point). Being asked and wilfully not acting despite being able to is generally frowned upon in most jurisdictions, so France just got there early.
It's not difficult, really. Choices have consequences.
Just ask John Wick :)
Were you in the wizard of oz?
You weren't Dorothy, you weren't the tin man and you aren't the cowardly lion (inspite of your best efforts)... you're definitely not the wicked or good witches and you're not the wizard.... and you're not even one of the munchkins or a flying monkey.
I've got it...
You're the strawman....
Yes but the police can travel on the road as freely as anyone else (more freely if responding to an emergency where they have the lawful authority to disregard certain traffic laws). To extend out your analogy imagine if the M6 toll road suddenly said "we don't want the police patrolling this road any more, we won't open our toll barriers to them". That is the current state of Telegram when they refuse to co-operate with law enforcement.
That's different from requiring the M6 toll company to employ their own security to prevent people from speeding, or to record the number plate of every car which goes through their toll booths in case the police want it in the future.
One difference between the road network and Telegram is that everything that happens on Telegram generates records merely by happening. You don't have to maintain cameras or sensors, all that is already built in to the network.
And "the vast majority of crimes" that involve a road are completely trivial - speeding/parking offences, improper signalling, failing to come to a complete halt at a Stop sign...
And what makes a 3-person chat, or a 10-person chat or a 100-person chat different from a 2-person chat?
On Telegram, 2-person chats have opt-in end-to-end encryption, but group chats never have end-to-end encryption.
https://www.howtogeek.com/710344/psa-telegram-chats-arent-end-to-end-encrypted-by-default/
The vital principle is that the venue providers should not have a requirement to record all the conversations that happen in their church hall, keep the recordings and give them to the police when asked later.
Nobody is arguing that.
To stretch this - ill-advised - analogy, the issue here is that when the Police ask "who rented the church hall where people exchanged drugs and child porn and do you happen to have their contact details, did they pay cash or BACS?", the village hall committee are ignoring the request on the basis of protecting the privacy of the alleged offenders.
In most jurisdictions, this generally makes the hall committee somewhat of an accessory to the crime. Not because they were directly involved, but because they are bizarrely protecting people who are alleged to have broken the law instead of handing over metadata or what relevant material they have available.
the issue here is that when the Police ask "who rented the church hall where people exchanged drugs and child porn and do you happen to have their contact details, did they pay cash or BACS?",
And when the Police are just on a fishing expedition, or engaged in a politically-motivated prosecution? Yes, let's just let the thugs perform all the surveillance they want without question. That's gone so well in the US over the past 23 years.
When the police ask for that level of information, and they tell you that it's part of an investigation into a crime - they're not obliged to tell you what crime - you provide it. It's not your job to stick up for the rights of the suspects, that's what lawyers are for.
If the police are overreaching, there are mechanisms to deal with that, and in due course you may also be asked to give evidence to one of them.
If your default position is to assume that the police are engaging in politically motivated persecution, or similar, then - okay, that's a position you've come to. As an adult, you can make that decision. But the consequence is that you're aligning yourself with outlaws and should expect to be treated accordingly. If you think that's the morally correct position then good on you, but I have no sympathy with people who loudly and proudly choose martyrdom, then try to change their minds when they realise it's for real.
And when the Police are just on a fishing expedition, or engaged in a politically-motivated prosecution?
Ah, so we should just not do anything at all then, because occasionally Police abuse (or try to) abuse their powers? If we're going to go down that route, we might as well disband the Police. Just hand every child a gun and tell them to stand up for themselves.
We have Police for a reason - on balance, society needs some way to enforce it's laws against grievous acts like murder, kidnap and child abuse (otherwise they're just words written on paper and have no power). You obviously have a grudge, but actually, most Police forces in developed European nations do a pretty decent job when it comes to stemming Nazi coups and addressing the worst online excesses of society. No Police force is perfect. We must all be wary of a new Stazi. Declining to cooperate with authorities on legitimate, bona-fide criminal investigations within a framework of minimum surveillance is not clever or "brave". It's stupid.
If the Police serve a warrant from the proper authorities, then businesses and individuals alike are compelled to assist. Telegram are in the "finding out" phase of FUAFO.
But I get it - you're in your prepper bunker in the hills of Montana with a stack of AR15s by the door and you can look after your own security. Good for you. Stay there and don't bother the rest of us.
The phone company no longer listens to you conversation and sells info to a third party. (See the history of automatic telephone exchanges and Strowgers motivation for inventing the first one.)
The mail man does not open your letters and stuff them with advertising leaflets related to the subject.
So no it's not the same X and Facebook read your messages and select adverts and connections to other users based on the contents of your message. If they can identify me a a potential lawn mower customer based on my moans about long grass they can easily identify racist and illegal content. They just don't want to as they make too much money from scumbags.
Not usually a great admirer of the the French mais Continuez votre bon travail.
The phone company no longer listens to you conversation and sells info to a third party.
They may still listen, but only if someone pays them for it. The ability to facilitate legal intercept has been a standard part of a telecoms license in most countries for literally decades, and the phone companies made out like bandits billing the respective governments for it. The problem is that quite a lot of that traffic has gone digital, so intercept became harder.
France has a president who refuses to appoint the democratically elected prime minister, of the party that opposes him, despite his landslide election defeat. He “deferred the transfer of power during the Olympics”; and now it will not take place at all. The same president is also now imprisoning heads of media companies, for crimes they didn’t personally commit.
It’s not a strawman. This is a coup in progress. Dictators are always elected, but ends in President for Life.
If this were sanctions against the company, that’s one thing. Arresting the CEO? This is a fascist coup.
This post has been deleted by its author
"The same president is also now imprisoning heads of media companies, for crimes they didn’t personally commit."
I'm actually in favor of making sure it's the C-Suite with their backs against the wall when the revolution comes. The difficulty is that the laws may not be written in such a way that allows for these sort of detainment. It's a place where even a government needs to tread carefully. The populace might not get too angry with an impact to Telegram, but if laws are interpreted in a way that would make FB and other companies liable for things and subject their executives to random arrests, it might wind up being simpler for those companies to discontinue serving any URL from France until there's been some negotiation.
These services are becoming entrenched before governments take any notice and make decisions about where to plant the goal posts. Once entrenched, there's a big downside to coming down hard on them as it will affect a large number of people. The companies are having a field day knowing full well that the type of service they are implementing is going to get out of hand without human moderation but the business plan doesn't have that in the budget. Just like Uber and Lyft ignoring taxi/livery laws.
The services are not charged for at the point of use, but they are not free.
We pay for them throigh advertiser overheads, but more importanlty we pay for them in social cost.
The damage to society of unaccountable, hidden manipulation of the information peope are presented with is incalculable, but huge.
If Durov is being held responsable for the actions of Telegrams users,
Durov is being held for his absolutist view on cooperating with the authorities on serious, abhorrent and objectively important issues like Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).
Every single major messaging and social platform will cooperate with authorities on matters of CSAM. Even if they have E2E encryption and can't turn over images, they'll help with metadata analysis or turn over what they can (subject to the appropriate warrants). Everyone except Telegram.
Telegram now has a reputation for being the place to go if you want to share child porn. It was also a key organising platform for ISIS. Since Telegram holds some content (particularly) group chats) on their servers, this means they are hosting child porn.
I'll give you a clue - web hosts will also close your account (and hand everything to authorities) - if they become aware that you're hosting child porn on their servers.
The idea that users might try and share content that is unlawful everywhere and universally held to be abhorrent is not Telegram's fault. The fact that they have shrugged their shoulders and declined to do anything about it is. It was becoming a matter of when - not if - someone finally decided to hold Durov to account.
Musk should take note - his disregard for misinformation and unlawful content on Xitter, and the way he has fired almost the entire safeguarding team - is leading him down the same path.
I don't think it's that absolutist, just selective depending on who's asking. Apparently telegram has given user data in response to court demands (and governments that don't bother with any process at all) in several countries. I started feeling suspicious when Moxie Marlinespike claimed telegram backend is designed to keep far more user data than would be justified for a privacy preserving platform, then Durov's response was eerily gas-lighty (suggesting that signal has nsa backdoors instead of constructive response). Then today I read this 1.5yr old article: https://www.wired.com/story/the-kremlin-has-entered-the-chat/. Given how hard the Russian govt is allowing and now sending more diplomats to complain than they'd ever bother for a regular citizen, I wouldn't touch telegram with a ten meter pole.
It seems odd that the authorities don't use the holes that have been left in the design for access.
Telegram uses SMS for activation and logging in to an account. (With the possibility of email as 2FA).
If authorities know the phone number (and if needed the email this would potentially be harder) they could intercept the code, and log in to Telegram and capture all the cloud data.
Also Telegram now requires an official app to register, making it harder to use securely (you used to be able to sign up on a desktop, now you must use a mobile OS).
You appear to be advocating blanket state censorship and universal surveillance of the sort attempted by the Stasi. A sort of China x Middle Ages mash up.
This guy has been arrested because governments haven't been given a back door into his service, and because he is Russian. Any CEO who isn't in prison, you can assume has granted that access.
Perhaps you would prefer for it to be written in 'crayon' for you... he's been arrested for 'not' following French laws, has French citizenship and for allowing rampant spread of illegal materials such as CSAM on the platform.
If crayon is too difficult... morse code... semaphore... maybe sign language (please specify if you prefer ASL or BSL).
But don't let your delusional paranoia get in the way of ya know... facts.
I understand what you are saying but it is a dangerous line to walk.
"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Sure its a simple line but with just a little thought behind it, it becomes a very scary potential reality, one history has proven many times over.
It's confirmed as CSAM so I don't know what great ideal Telegram is upholding that the others aren't.
I can see how you (and many others) just love to hate Mr. Musk; the powers that be will be satisfied with your "Two-Second-Hate", as it were. On the one hand.
Even so, there is something I have to break to you: Elon Musk is not Emmanuel Goldstein. He's not even Pavel Durov. He is, for the better or for worse and whether or not he actually enjoys being it, an important leader of the US Military-Industrial Complex and in that capacity not really dispensable at this time.
I'm talking about SpaceX, of course. Much as the US political establishment (not to speak of his rival billionaire peers) may hate him - most of them would hate to lose the current US technological edge in space exploration even more. And yes, space exploration still being in its infancy, technologically speaking, individuals can and often *do* make a huge difference, both in the domain of engineering and administration, as did von Braun and Korolyov in their day and Musk does in ours. "Rocket science" still has a long way to go before it may become a commodity one day, and there can be little doubt that if, say, a "lone wolf" were to be successfully unleashed on Musk, SpaceX would, before long, be going the way of Boeing...
Combine this with the fact that France, like any other country in Western Europe you care to name, is a fully owned client state of the US and it is not difficult to see that, if some overambitious French official bidding for powers above his station were to incommodate Mr. Musk in this way, a phone call by the US ambassador to France would fix matters for him within 48 hours *maximum*. (And I can vividly see the complacent smile on the ambassador's face as he is "teaching them frenchies manners".)
Ok, ok, one should never underestimate the power of human stupidity and cases where the top echelons of power have put the heads of some of their best military and economic leaders on the block, by the dozen even, are not unheard of: But at this time I'd give e.g. Mr. Sullivan (or who ever happens to be calling the shots for Team-Biden-turned-Team-Harris-in-the-blink-of-an-eye) credit for not being *that* stupid -- current US foreign policy doing its best to rival the pre-WW-I Wilhelmstraße in topsy-turvy diplomatic clumsiness nonwithstanding.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, given Durov has French and UAE citizenship (according to the Beeb's coverage of this), it's no wonder that the Russian authorities are not hearing back from the French. And the Russians shouldn't expect to hear back from the French either. Why?
The French are a) holding, and b) treating him as a French citizen, which means there's no recourse to 'consular assistance' or any of that guff. Having citizenship of various countries is nice, but that comes with rights, responsibilities and requirements. And guess what, if you're a French citizen, you can't go running (and there's no evidence of Durov doing this) to your other country of citizenship to beg for help when you get arrested in France, under French laws, especially if you acquired French citizenship post-birth and you were actively (as an adult) required to swear an oath to the Republic.
And the Musketeers fronting and flapping their gums about freedom of speech and the like should sit TF down and shut up if they are a) not French, b) don't know French law, and c) don't know citizenship rights and responsibilities. And it's clear none of them fulfil those requirements either.
what do french presidents have to do with this?
France arrested Durov.
The Bbc's supplied a little more context, maybe-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy54905nv0go
An IWF spokesperson said that “despite attempts to proactively engage with Telegram over the last year, they are not members of the IWF and do not take any of our services to block, prevent, and disrupt the sharing of child sexual abuse imagery."
By not being an active part of IWF or NCMEC, Telegram is not able to proactively find, remove or block confirmed CSAM which is categorised and added to lists compiled by the charities.
IWF said that the company did remove CSAM once material was confirmed but said it was slower and less responsive to day to day requests.
Which may be a bit of a stretch, ie whether CSPs should be forced to be members of an entity like IWF, which sometimes sits in a strange legal position. Plus the costs of being a member of the IWF, or other entities like it. And then there's the practicalities around what exactly is wanted. I fully support the IWF, well, except for the time they wanted to expand their remit to political and hate speech. But are they expecting Telegram to subscribe to a 'Cleanfeed' style system to automagically remove CP? Or are they wanting Telegram to just be more responsive and have a better SPOC to deal with notifications.
But it's a bit of a stretch to charge a CEO with distributing CP, even though they may technically be doing so, just as other CSPs are. This seems to be one of those murky areas around whether CSPs are 'Common Carriers', with the protections that follow, or Publishers, which is a status CSPs have been desperately trying to avoid for years.
This post has been deleted by its author
Indeed its not unreasonable. But this must be applied across all platforms, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
Although breaking encryption and inspecting messages is unreasonable.
The proposed wheeze of not breaking encryption, but using AI (simple pattern matching) on the end device to inspect messages is not reasonable either.
So whats reasonable?
this must be applied across all platforms, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
not only that, but also postal services and commercial airlines must be shut down because terrorists and drug traffickers are using those. Heck, ALL society should be shut down and people subjected to house restrictions, unless they can positively PROVE that they're law-abiding citizens. Everybody should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. And even then, only for some limited time and localization. Couldn't some computer specialists come up with some sort or portable visual code for that could serve that purpose ?
"If I am not mistaken, the US Postal Service is allowed to open any letter or parcel to check if there is no illegal material inside..."
In the case of a letter, only with a previously-issued warrant. Which would only be granted if there are grounds to suspect illegal content.
Postal services and commercial airlines do take action when they're told that specific individuals are committing crimes. Even public roads are patrolled to stop drugs, slaves, and weapons transport. Big tech companies are the only organizations claiming that they can offer any services they want and not be at all responsible for their chronic abuse.
"So whats reasonable?"
There is NO reasonable way to protect user privacy AND monitor abuse. Police forces and 'intelligence' agencies need to cure themselves of their data addiction and get back to the basics - using old-fashioned detective work to identify and go after the endpoints.
As to what constitutes 'abusive material', or even 'fake news' - We all know it starts out with "think of the children" and "everyone is against this" issues like terrorism and child porn. We also know, because it is literally happening right now, that this is rapidly expanded to whatever targets the government decides, and 'fake news' can be whatever the current government or media establishments decree it to be, even if it's debatable or actually true.
But this must be applied across all platforms, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
It is. They all cooperate with law enforcement when presented with a proper, legally-binding warrant relating to investigations into CSAM/terrorist material/etc.
This is sufficient, even for the likes of WhatsApp who only supply metadata since the content is E2E encrypted. A best-effort is made within the parameters of the service.
Telegram don't. They direct all such requests to dev/null and give law enforcement the finger, judging that privacy trumps child rape. And look, I despair at the "think of the children" argument when politicos use it as an excuse to try and break encryption or demand that "coders" do the mathematically impossible. But Telegram are literally washing their hands of responsibility for CSAM. "lalala can't hear you, won't even help with metadata".
Society has decided this is insufficient and (via relevant Parliaments) legislated against it.
Those laws are being enforced. /surprisedpikachu
As I understand it, Telegram has end to end encryption, so they literally cannot control what's written in messages — by design.
Now countries might well decide to make end to end encryption illegal, but until that's the case, it seems weird to complain about a lack of moderation on such a platform.
It is also a bit unusual to straight up arrest the CEO, but I suppose Telegram does not have a presence in France that they can serve with legal complaints?
This is not about encryption. Telegram only has end to end encryption for what they call "secret chats" and these are (by design?) buried in the UI. Groups, channels, and non-secret chats are all effectively non-encrypted at rest on Telegram's servers.
Telegram is not an E2E chat app like WhatsApp or Signal, it's a social network like Facebook or Reddit which also allows you to open an E2E chat window if you want to.
France detained him for Telegram's lack of action over groups and channels where all kind of fraud and trading of illegal goods is allowed to happen and payment for them is taken by bots. It's the dark web in a nice-looking app.
This is not an attack on free speech, it's an attack on an app which facilitates crime. I'm perfectly happy with that.
Huh, if crims are using non-encrypted Telegram chats which law enforcement are aware if surely its simple to infiltrate, track and arrest crims? Shutting it down takes that opportunity away.
Wasn't WhatsApp groups used to organise UK riots recently? Thus an app that facilitates crime?
Is it really that easy to track and arrest someone anywhere in the world who sells stolen ID, bank account, or card data via a bot that takes bitcoin?
How easy do you think it is to go after someone in Nigeria using Telegram to facilitate sextortion?
It was Telegram and X that were used to organise far-right riots in the UK.
Wasn't WhatsApp groups used to organise UK riots recently? Thus an app that facilitates crime?
Telegram was heavily used, because most of the far-right channels are on there.
However, where WhatsApp was used, WhatsApp would provide metadata to Police in response to legal requests/warrants. They take some measure of responsibility for content shared on their network, as required by law (just as phone companies are required to hand over call records subject to the law).
Telegram wilfully choose not to comply with relevant legislation. That's what has made them culpable.
"Is it absurd to expect the owner to make an effort to prevent abuse?"
It IS absurd to expect that a platform that facilitates users' end-to-end encrypted communication has the slightest notion of what's in the communication. Governments making that expectation are implicitly saying that any company providing end-to-end encrypted communication is illegal.
This is not about end-to-end encryption. If you do think it's about end-to-end encryption then it's because Telegram has worked to bring about that widespread misunderstanding for years.
End-to-end encryption is one small part of Telegram and even then it's only available on the mobile client, not on the desktop client.
No. It’s very sensible and normal to enforce court orders against companies, when the company is breaking the law. Civil penalties.
Putting the CEO in jail?! This is extraordinary. You know what a “limited company” is? How many CEOs have been put in prison for eg their building cladding being responsible for dozens of deaths? How many in jail for food poisoning deaths? Is it…zero?
This is the owner of a media company. He is in jail purely so that Macron can take over Telegram and use it for President for Life propaganda. Telegram may well be used for many criminal purposes, and even rise to the level of being a criminal enabler. But the reason why *that particular guy is in jail* is because President for Life is taking over the media outlets.
Then you initiate court orders against the company. Or go in heavy-handed and physically confiscate data from their servers. Or if you want to get really tough, you confiscate the company and appoint administrators. But you don’t arrest the *director* of a limited liability company, who has not personally committed a *criminal offence*, and put them in custody. That’s when you stop being a state with Rule of Law, and it’s a simple dictatorship. That moment, right there. There’s a massive difference between doing things which are unlawful, and committing a criminal offence.
When an airline runs flights that you can buy tickets for, knowing that there are insufficient seats, that is unlawful. They have signed contracts that they have no intention to honour. It is unlawful. Now in France, the CEO of Air France can be arrested and go jail for fraudulent misrepresentation for overbooked flights? This is insane. You know as well as I do, that’s not going to happen. What that tells you is that the authorities are picking and choosing who to arrest, based on nationality, or whether they like them, or if they have a funny shape nose, or whether they’ve annoyed Macron in some way. That’s what we found out today, in public. There is no Rule of Law in France any more. Some people will get arrested, some won’t. Which group you are in has nothing at all to do with what crime you committed, and is determined only by who you are friends with.
Just: But you don’t arrest the *director* of a limited liability company, who has not personally committed a *criminal offence*, and put them in custody.
cow: Wow the media has really brainwashed you to the max, in worshipping and attributing everything wonderful and never blaming the CEO.
Just: There is no Rule of Law in France any more.
cow: Brainwashing 101
The CEO may well be responsible, but that doesn’t make it a criminal offence. It’s a core principle of modern societies that stuff which we do in the course of our job, is the responsibility of the company rather than individual employees being personally criminally liable. It protects you as an employee as much as the CEO. We couldn’t really have companies and paid employment at all without the protections of limited liability companies.
Having said that, I just checked something, and reverse my position…..seems like this Durov character has been hiding his “company” in British Virgin Islands, with a web of cross-holdings, such that it’s totally unclear who is the owner. He’s put a lot of effort into ensuring that there simply isn’t a company in France or anywhere else, such that government subpoenas simply can’t be applied. In which case, he has been hoist by his own petard. The man is the company, the company is the man, and the corporate veil has been pierced. In that case, any company penalties can be applied directly to him. Any CSAM material passed through his servers should be treated as if found on the hard drive at his home.
Durov did this to himself.
JITF The CEO may well be responsible, but that doesn’t make it a criminal offence.
cow: Yeh helping the Russian state is not an offense. He is actively helping Putin thats a war crime... thats why Telegram is and continues to be able to do business. Its also the reason why Telegram is being activelys supported by Putin and his media.
Go read Russian media headlines, they are crying because T is helpful for them. THey dont cry for ordinary Russians, they are sacrificing them by the thousands in Ukraine.
"Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law."
Liberty isn't the right to do whatever you want.
Maybe so. But try making a complaint against the police in France. Or even go against them in any way legally. For every police officer who makes a statement in a court of law, you need at least 2 other witnesses to discount their evidence before a judge for them to even consider the other version of events.
Think about that for a while. (And there is no safeguard of jury.)
Basically if a police officers says you did something, then without any other witnesses, that is what happened.
Not sure about that, but having once owned a property in France I have some experience of dealing with French banks and tax man, none of it good!
A quick example. A year after we bought the property we received a letter from the local authorities saying that they thought that we hadn't paid enough for it and here's a tax bill for around a thousand euros. First problem, the first letter had been incorrectly addressed (English address in French format) and never received. This was the final demand.
No chance of an appeal (cos we didn't get the first letter) and panicked calls to the agent who handled the sale just resulted in "nothing we can do". Then a moment of inspiration. A good friend was not only French but worked as a tax inspector in another city, so we gave him a call (this was the late 80s, early 90s) and explained the situation. He said to fax the paperwork through to him and he would see what he could do. We never heard another thing, what it is to have friends in high places!
A quibble. Allen Stanford was indeed a banker. Strictly speaking Bernie Madoff was a broker not a banker although he apparently decided at some point that actually trading in securities was a hassle and quite unnecessary because claiming to trade was every bit as profitable and a good deal less stressful.
> One has to ask why did this not happen during the banking crisis ?
> Oh yea anyone in the government with a really large bank account was fearful of loosing it all, so .... no arrests before, during or after.
The same happens with gun manufacturers... their products kill way more people than Telegram, but those that arrested Durov need banks and guns.
The only way to combat the rise of extremism, hate and bile on social media is to make them liable for it... I've been suggesting for a few years now that they be reclassified as 'publishers' to make them liable for the content they allow and profit from on their platforms... I was suggesting mandatory minimum fines... say 1000 per view and 5000 per share. The idea being to make it so unprofitable, that they have no choice but to work to eradicate it or see their revenues collapse into such a negative that the company cannot survive and no VC is going to want to piss their money away paying fines.
I know that's probably never going to happen... But I can hope.
So treating the spread of hate and bile and as I've seen reported CSAM on the platform as the crimes that they are... and holding the owners of the company liable... yeah. I'm kinda for that.
Fines would have been great... jail time for those allowing and profiting from it... even better.
Also... Russia is only getting involved because they use it to organise and communicate with their own forces.. or at least, some of their own forces use it to communicate with each other.
"The only way to combat the rise of extremism, hate and bile on social media is to make them liable for it.."
I disagree that it's the only way. It's the most convenient and politically palatable way, especially since it passes all costs to the platform (and therefore its users) and simultaneously excuses law enforcement of any real detective work.
As for my own position, I think that, while Governments have a difficult job in rooting out creators of, and active participants in, illegal activity (such as CSAM, the drug trade and extremism), forcing primary responsibility for enforcement onto the platform is a cop out with severe negative consequences (as has been alluded to in this comments page and many others).
The dividing line between sensible law enforcement and political expediency is increasingly blurry and it is adding to the erosion of trust in Government and institutions. Whilst there may be serious illegality on Telegram to be dealt with (innocent until proven guilty one would hope, even though that's not entirely how the French criminal justice system operates), it would nevertheless behoove the French Government to approach this matter with more regard for the optics than they have shown so far.
Reclassification of social media firms as publishers is long overdue.
It's not complex in principle - follow the money. If you make money by charging users for a service then you are a service provider. If you offer an illegal service for money then the law already has suitable ways of dealing with you.
Two things make you a publisher:
- You make money by a different means than directly charging your users. Usually by running advertising alongside content and/or selling data.
- You create and/or recommend content, including algorithmically driven recommendations and AI created content.
At the moment, the social media companies get to plead neutrality while making billions from, er, not being neutral. They favour forms of content that make them money.
The moment you introduce those two definitions of a publisher, the likes of Facebook & YouTube must make a choice. Accept the responsibilities that come with being a publisher, or give up ads and recommendation engines, directly charge your users for hosting and become true service providers.
By definition if anyone can see illegal content they are party to the chat or group, and therefore can identify at least by a phone number the author / poster of the illegal content. So the trivial answer is "report the info to the police".
It's been repeated ad nauseam on these pages - there is no technical way for encrypting that allows only specific parties (aka 'good guys') to decrypt without anyone else being able to. And even if there WERE such a technical possibility, we have only the 'good guys' own word that the power isn't abused (an assurance that isn't worth shit let alone printer paper).
Either we are willing to accept that there will be some level of criminal behaviour / content on comms networks while the rest of the world goes about it's business, or we criminalise every comms user and middleman to have the theoretical on-paper possibility of catching all criminals (which will never come to effect in real life). In a free liberal society, only the first option is any option at all.
By definition if anyone can see illegal content they are party to the chat or group, and therefore can identify at least by a phone number the author / poster of the illegal content. So the trivial answer is "report the info to the police".
And the police issue take-down requests but Telegram do not co-operate.
It's been repeated ad nauseam on these pages - there is no technical way for encrypting that allows only specific parties (aka 'good guys') to decrypt without anyone else being able to. And even if there WERE such a technical possibility, we have only the 'good guys' own word that the power isn't abused (an assurance that isn't worth shit let alone printer paper).
The encrypted text and the key for everything except "secret chats" are stored on Telegram's servers, which is effectively the same as Telegram storing them as plaintext. All groups, channels, and "cloud chats" fail the "mud puddle" test.
"And the police issue take-down requests"
A more positive action would be, on being presented with evidence of crime, including conspiracy, to investigate, arrest and charge those committing it. Issuing a takedown notice, even if it's acted on, does not bring those responsible to book; it doesn't even deter them.
By means of the CISA shell they tried to censor the h3ll out of the internet during the Covid Scare, aka. GATES Cr4p Selling Operation.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-cisa-tried-cover-censorship-practices
https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html
Telegram was then one of the few Free Speech Platforms. Highly valuable.
Now CIA leans on Paris to harass Durov.
Quote: ".....enjoy the anonymity it affords....."
CORRECTION #1:
Sorry....wrong!! Yes it might offer some privacy (you know....E2EE)....but anonymity requires much harder work.......
CORRECTION #2:
In fact, this arrest is simply misdirection by the French and the EU. Behind the scenes Pavel is negotiating a better backdoor.....
....and all the while using this public arrest so he can say: "They are picking on me because I'm a good guy!"
Quote (William Burroughs): The paranoid is a person who knows a little of what is going on.
People have a right to speech and a right not to be spied on by the platforms they're using. Telegram is right to refuse moderation on their platform. We should mandate end to end encryption on more platforms. Places like Proton Mail have shown it can be done. It should be required that Apple and Google implement it with all their online services. At this point, the whole tech industry should cut off any and all services they provide to the government of France. Perhaps other countries should cut off diplomatic ties as well.
@BasicReality
Ah......two meanings of "right" conflated to confuse.
Why am I not surprised?
MEANING #1:
"right" meaning "correct". No probs!
MEANING #2:
"right" meaning "specific personal freedom", as in "civil right", "right to protest", "right to vote", etc., etc......
Interesting that almost every time meaning #2 is invoked, no one mentions that in exchange for the grant of the "right", the citizen also acquires some responsibilities.......
- "right to vote" --> responsibility to turn up at the polling station
- "right to protest" --> responsibility to make sure that protesting does not harm other citizens
Funny how MEANING #2 seems never to include responsibility!!!!!!
Of course an individual is responsible for their own actions, What the French government is trying to do is hold the owner of Telegram responsible for other people's actions. He is not. Telegram is not. The platform being used for communication is not responsible for the actions of its users.
If those people using the platform are committing a crime, then it's up to law enforcement to deal with it, not by going after the platform, but by going after the actual criminals.
Platforms can and should be built to encrypt communication, and to provide users with the ability to remain anonymous. We've already seen what happens when governments go crazy, the jackasses in charge of the UK are more worried about jailing people over a mean comment on social media instead of stopping actual criminals.
Wrong.
He is not responsible for the actions of other people, but he is responsible for what is broadcast through his social network. Because it is a real-time system, he has quite a lot of wiggle room and a lot of it comes down to "when we identify stuff that is illegal, please take it down". The problem, and the responsibility, comes when he refuses. And that's why he has been arrested.
You know, it is possible to be arrested for recieving stolen goods, especially if you knew or had sufficient evidence to believe (like a too good to be true price). You can also be arrested as an accomplice to a crime even if you didn't do it yourself. That's how the law works. So if some sort of illegal content is identified and take down requests are actively ignored, the logical reading of this is that the site operators are therefore knowingly okay with this stuff being on their site. That will not go down well with the judiciary. Especially given that the guy has French nationality and, as was pointed out above, will have been required to attest to upholding the laws of France, not ignoring them from the comfort of Dubai.
Going after the actual criminals is only useful if the identities of the criminals is known. The whack-a-mole rigamarole is simpler but it only hits low hanging fruit, and like taking down the latest MCU film, it's a bit pointless as it'll only pop up again someplace else but everybody can at least claim that something was done...
"We've already seen what happens when governments go crazy"
We've also seen what happens when citizens with these sorts of communication services go crazy.
"the jackasses in charge of the UK are more worried about jailing people over a mean comment on social media instead of stopping actual criminals."
That's probably the police rather than the "jackasses in charge" because firstly it's a different bunch of jackasses now, and secondly massive police cutbacks with the previous jackasses mean that it's far better to go after "hate crime" (read: dumb comment on social media) because the evidence is right there, it's quick and simple, and it allows for the "crimes solved" counter top be kicked regularly. Dealing with actual criminals requires resources they don't have any more and people they don't have any more and time they can't afford and, anyway, aren't half the bad guys in the MET?
It's a clusterfuck when the police no longer bother to turn up for robberies and shoplifting, but there's no magical solution, only incremental improvements. And no part of this part of the discussion has any relevance to whether or not it was acceptable to arrest the bloke running Telegram for Telegram's refusal to cooperate with the police...
Let's start with a brick. I understand your head is probably full of them. But anyway, you can take a brick and build a house, or a children's hospital. You can do so much good with a brick. Or instead, you can bash a person's head in with it. The brick is neutral, it is neither good or bad. The brick is simply a tool to be used. The brick maker, is simply providing the tool. The brick maker is not responsible for how you use or misuse the brick.
You can rent a car and use it to take your family on a nice vacation, or you can rent the car and run over a group of people on the sidewalk. Again however, the car maker, the rental company, these groups are not responsible and have no liability over your choices in how to use their product.
Telegram is no different. Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Signal, Session, Bitcoin, I could continue naming technologies. They have ZERO responsibility in how a person chooses to use their products. They simply provide a product, if someone misuses that product, they are not liable in any way whatsoever.
Did you know, if you use Telegram, there are groups that distribute porn? Did you also know, you can sign up and access those groups on Android or desktop versions of Telegram, but they are blocked on Apple devices? Telegram isn't a perfect free speech platform, they do have some moderation and censorship built in. They do block some stuff, but they cannot block everything. Some stuff will continue on their platform and on others, but they are still not criminally liable for any of that content.
AI has helpfully provided "A slippery slope argument suggests that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in a significant (usually negative) effect."
Up next.... "Beat up used white Ford Econoline van used by pedophiles, CEO of Ford Motor Company arrested."
As for Telegram, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and it starts at the Backdoor.
There are a variety of errors in this article as well as incorrect assumptions the commenters here are making.
1) Telegram has never been an “end-to-end encrypted messaging app” - there is ONE special feature called “secret chats” that is e2ee, but the vast majority of Telegram users do not use it because it only applies to 1-to-1 chats and it's a lot less convenient to use than the default chat functionality.
2) The claim by an apparent official Telegram source that “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants” is also false. Telegram users have been able to create public chats for many years, and Telegram’s one-to-many “channels” are public by default. In fact, Telegram actually publishes the contents of such public group chats on a separate website BY DEFAULT.
3) Virtually all the assumptions by journalists as well as commenters about why Durov was actually arrested are based on rumors and speculation. To my knowledge none of the French authorities have made ANY official statement about this arrest. (They may be leaking things through certain media organizations but I don’t consider such things to carry the same weight as an official statement. And the fact that the French authorities have NOT made any official statements on the matter is very strange to me.)
The tactic of claiming that some person or entity is “endangering the children” or “contributing to human trafficking” has become so widely abused as a tactic of slandering people and organizations that it’s become a meme at this point. The response from various commenters here is a good demonstration of how easy it is to rile people up with such amorphous claims that contain no actual details.
I’m not suggesting that somehow Telegram and Durov by extension is categorically innocent of such things (and Telegram as a platform certainly is setup and run in a way that can make it easier in some ways for such people to gather there than perhaps some other large messaging platforms) but as with any legal matter if one expects to have credibility on such issues the public needs more than these generalized meme-like accusations that do not even come from official sources.
Before we all jump to conclusions on any of this I think it’s worth stopping and thinking about the wider impacts of making it so easy to rile up large numbers of people around the world against someone via unofficial rumor and innuendo. Something which any of us could be victimized by if we were unlucky enough to cross paths with some sociopath with nothing better to do. Modern technology has given virtually anyone the ability to do this on a global basis in the blink of an eye.
Before we all jump to conclusions on any of this I think it’s worth stopping and thinking about the wider impacts of making it so easy to rile up large numbers of people around the world against someone via unofficial rumor and innuendo. Something which any of us could be victimized by if we were unlucky enough to cross paths with some sociopath with nothing better to do. Modern technology has given virtually anyone the ability to do this on a global basis in the blink of an eye.
Yup, that genie is well and truly out of the bottle. This site could be a good example. Lots of IT people, lots with the ability to do damage to systems we control. Let's hack the world and do the great reset on all the things! Or not, because most of us are responsible adults. I say most of us, but then again I've been 'victimised' because some muppets think I'm an FSB shill, and someone even went to the trouble to (probably) write a script to downvote all my posts, regardless of content. Some anonymong had nothing better to do.
But the Durov thing is curious in both timing and method. He usually lives in Dubai, where Telegram is now based. UAE has extradition treaties with France, so if France thought Telegram was acting illegally, or Durov specifically had done something illegal, they could have charged and requested extradition. Instead, they skipped that process and now habeus the corpus, but we're not sure why. Or what message France is sending to the CEOs in charge of 'social' media companies. Don't visit France because you might be arrested.
It seems like the arrest has something to do with the EU's Digital Surveillance Act and how 'social' media companies should be monitoring, or allowing their services to be monitored. Give LEAs the ability to monitor comms, or you'll be arrested. Comply with some fuzzy definitions of 'misinformation', or 'hate', or you'll be arrested. So whether France, and by extension the EU is telling the tech bros to comply, or the EU is off limits to CEOs.
"I say most of us, but then again I've been 'victimised' because some muppets think I'm an FSB shill, and someone even went to the trouble to (probably) write a script to downvote all my posts, regardless of content. Some anonymong had nothing better to do"
Oh its so sad. Lets ignore the amount of downvotes on your russian bootlicking posts...
Wow, the amount of “but think of the children” comments here is truly astonishing. I thought we had learned from the previous 94583259 assaults governments make on encrypted communications that this is a piss-poor argument for throwing out encryption?
If you genuinely believe this is “because of the children”, i’ve a few bridges for sale.
We have to be careful with the ‘think of the children’ argument but don’t call Telegram encrypted communications because it’s largely unencrypted.
That’s why Durov is sitting on this massive haul of sensitive communications (including internal comms from the Russian army) that he has access to.
It’s even conceivable that Durov would not have been in trouble if it had been encrypted because then it would have been a case of responding that he can’t do what the French police wants because he doesn’t know what people are using the service for. But as he does have access to nearly all the chats he can’t plead innocence.
The fact that Durov was in Azerbaijan exactly at the same time as Putin (there are reports the two had scheduled to meet) and then immediately takes his private jet to a country he knows he will be arrested seems quite remarkable to me. It's almost as if he handed himself in for his own safety. And it appears I'm not the only one who thinks this is peculiar: someone on X, someone on Mastodon.
Yes, I've seen this speculation elsewhere including from some people I know personally.
The whole thing is fishy, looks very contrived. Including this "coincidence" of the alleged Baku meeting request.
I'm wondering if that was just planted in the press as part of the game. Durov is not in the habit of announcing failed attempts to meet powerful people. He's the kind of narcissist that would never voluntarily admit such a thing anyway, and since he was flying on a private plane no one would be the wiser about it if he had just kept quiet about it.
And given the new Digital Surveillance Act in the EU, the French government by taking such a unilateral action without consultation with EU officials would actually be flouting that act.
Lastly - I have never known any major government to take radical action against the head of a large well-known tech company without some public evidence of longstanding gripes against them beforehand, and usually some news coverage about this.
It's claimed that's the case between France and Telegram but I never saw any news story about that. Perhaps the fact that I'm in the USA is partly responsible for that but it still strikes me as kind of strange.
This whole thing is indeed quite strange.
a) as long as the French Government would not explain *why* Durov was granted in 2021, in less than a week, the french nationality under the absolute mysterious status of "emeritus foreigner", one may wonder against *what* kind of service this status was traded. Some form on Intelligence on Russia ? (Remember that, by the time, he was considered a kind of "Free World™ Hero" for refusing to handle information about Navalny to the Russians, while operating in Russia his previous network VK);
b) if a deal was set, was part of it was actually not fulfilled, leading to the present arrest ?
c) how is one to believe that, with that level of wealth (implying the ability to hire the best lawyers) and the kind of political and personal contacts that goes along, Durov was not aware that flying to France was equating being arrested ?
Until some sort of credible answer given to this, I for one would take the current masquerade with a heavy pinch of salt.
It’s because France was Durov’s backup plan for if shit would hit the fan.
Something happened in Azerbijan, perhaps during his attempt to meet Putin, it makes Durov fear for his safety and he activates the backup plan by fleeing to France.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Durov is definitely more sympathetic to Putin than most but I don't think he is 100% in his pocket. Durov has been collecting citizenships beyond his Russian citizenship and deliberately chose Berlin to start Telegram.
I suspect he may have been playing some dangerous double game and something went seriously wrong in Azerbaijan last Friday or Saturday, making him flee to Paris.
I suspect he may have been playing some dangerous double game and something went seriously wrong in Azerbaijan last Friday or Saturday, making him flee to Paris.
Not sure about fleeing, but there were rumors he'd requested an audience with Putin while they were both there, but no idea if that audience was granted. That may have upset politicians who took the opportunity to arrest Durov and send a message. It may also be about the Ukraine thing. Telegram has been a good source of information and misinformation from both pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia sides. Ukraine is very sensitive about what is shown, and has arrested people for posting things that could be seen as negative. So it may be related to that, and pressuring Durov to censor stuff.. which is one of the reasons he and Telegram left Russia.
The Azeri news agency Turan writes that Putin refused the meeting: Putin refused to meet with Pavel Durov in Baku
So what if they did ?
What exactly does a statement by the state media of a former Soviet country actually mean ?
Integrity ? Truth ?
Pavel might not have met Putin but he probably still had the meeting he needed to have with someone else to get his instructions.
THere is a real history of Durov helping the Putin regime. Ordinary people just dont fly in and request an audience with Putin, this shows there is a real relationship and the fact Telegram operates in RUssia also confirms this.
Only an idiot would think otherwise.
Lets face the facts, Rich Russians always live in the west, even Putins daughter lives in Munich. He popped into Azerb for a quick chat with Putin which didnt happen and so left and went back to the west.
THere is no fleeing, its just standard way Russian oligarchs live and work.
Most people are idiots. The Navalny thing was a token event, the big picture is T is a very important platform for the Russian government. THe Russian army is actively using it as their communication platform in Ukraine, and you can be sure its also routing all chats to the Russian government so they can "watch" and "listen" if any Ukrainian is stupid enough to use it on the front line.
Here is how, last year, Proton Mail official description on Reddit of what happened to them (https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/15luwua/perhaps_not_as_private_as_we_thought/?rdt=54915):
The article doesn't link the original court filing or discuss what actually happened, and from the title alone, is rather misleading. The actual warrant can be found here and has the important missing details: https://drive.proton.me/urls/57QC5F26BW#nseYl6ICaQHm The only data we could provide (in response to a binding Swiss legal order), was the user's recovery email address, which the user added himself, and is optional to begin with. Unfortunately, said user also used that recovery address to create a Twitter account, and Twitter turned over his phone number and IP address. So probably not the smartest move if you want to threaten public officials. Coincidentally, this case again proves that Proton Mail's encryption cannot be bypassed by law enforcement
It's possible, likely even, that Durov was served a warrant for some similar information to trace a source (e.g., backup email or ip address) and didn't comply. In that case Durov/Telegram is not being treated any differently than any other company offering encrypted messaging.
Telegram is not a company offering encrypted messaging.
The Arrest of Pavel Durov Is a Reminder That Telegram Is Not Encrypted
Its amazing how many have not asked the question, why is Telegram allowed in Russia. Simple answer is Telegram is helping Putin, if it wasnt it would have been banned or limited. The French are of course fighting a proxy war against Russia via the Wagner group in their current colonial empire in Africa. THe French of course consider Pavel a bit too helpful to their opponents the Russians and thats why he has been arrested.
Yes it does.
France controls the currency for a dozen African countries. THere have been riots, mass demonstrations and even civil wars about this for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc
> In order to ensure this convertibility guarantee, member countries were required to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury,
France controls the currency for a dozen African countries.
Wrong. The CFA has a fixed parity to the euro, so the monetary policy is managed by the ECB.
THere have been riots, mass demonstrations and even civil wars about this for years.
Source?
member countries were required to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury,
The operating word is 'were': except for the 5 Central African countries, this obligation was removed in 2020, which you conveniently ignored from the article. Besides, the interests generated by these deposits are entirely returned to the countries.
The fact is, this system is entirely voluntary for the member countries, they can join and leave whenever they want. Some have left and rejoined, so they must have seen a benefit after all. It is interesting to note that Niger, Burkina and Mali are still part of it, even though their diplomatic relationships with France are almost inexistent.
FAC: THere have been riots, mass demonstrations and even civil wars about this for years.
cow: Dozens of news stories about what im saying...
google: french west africa protests
https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/anti-french-sentiment-west-africa-reflection-authoritarian-confrontation-collective-west
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66406137
FAC: The fact is, this system is entirely voluntary for the member countries, they can join and leave whenever they want. Some have left and rejoined, so they must have seen a benefit after all.
cow: Nonsense. The FR have troops there for a reason, they arent doing it for nothing, they are clearly getting an advantage from this. Wagner is trying to take this for themselves, and this is what is pissing off FR.
The FR arent there for nothing.
Have you even *read* the articles you are quoting or did you just pick up the first results of your search? None of them draws a link between the CFA and the protests. The second one even dismisses some BS by the Italian Prime Minister about the CFA. Both recognize that France didn't particulary manage the poist-colonization period particularly well (euphemism), but neither did other colonial powers, and they point out that anti-French sentiment is largely manipulated for political reasons. Still waiting for your evidence that the franc CFA is the cause of riots and civil wars.
Re: the troops, they were there to try and fight terrorists so as to avoid an influx of refugees in France/Europe. The local governments have decided that Wagner would do a better job (at the expense of the civil population), so they asked the French to leave, which they did, although reluctantly. We'll see how it goes in a few years.
FAC: Have you even *read* the articles you are quoting or did you just pick up the first results of your search?
Cow: I read them...
Learn to quote...befor eyou open your mouth.
FAC: The second one even dismisses some BS by the Italian Prime Minister about the CFA
cow: My second link is a BBC article.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66406137
This article does not mention Italy or Italian words in any form. Its almost like you dont know how to quote or count 1, 2.
It clearly shows angry africans who dislike France for what they did in the past and what they understand today. The article also mentions that France controls the CFA.
> Seven of the nine Francophone states in West Africa still use the CFA franc, which is pegged to the euro and guaranteed by France, as their currency, a legacy of French economic policy towards its colonies.
> France also forged defence agreements that saw it regularly intervene militarily on behalf of unpopular pro-French leaders to keep them in power.
DO you think this could be cause of protests etc ?
Grow a brain FR is exploting these countries, the locals see this, they dont like it, and they are protesting. FR is of course installing leaders for their own economic advantage.
FAC: Re: the troops, they were there to try and fight terrorists so as to avoid an influx of refugees in France/Europe. The local governments have decided that Wagner would do a better job (at the expense of the civil population), so they asked the French to leave, which they did, although reluctantly. We'll see how it goes in a few years.
cow: French troops have been in Africa for over 50 years as necessary for FR to impose its will on those countries. The locals dont like this, and they dont like what FR has done to interfere with their countries during this time. Its not only about terrorists, you are cherry picking and ignoring 50+ years of FR interference.
These are the actions of a military force protecting their assets. Notice there are many problems in Africa, FR limits itself to its former colonies, it does not interfere in many other places that are equally poor and troubled.
So the Meloni quote was in the first article, not the second, big deal: In 2019, Giorgia Meloni, [...], addressed the issue of the CFA franc to denounce the supposed exploitation of West Africa by France, disseminating false information and countless approximations along the way.
I take note that you now attribute dissent and riots to the presence of French troops in the country, and no longe to the CFA. We're making progress. The BBC quote on the CFA doesn't say the France controls it. You either lie or have trouble understanding. The CFA is pegged to the euro, which is controlled by the ECB. The deposits being held in France for guarantee doesn't change that.
blah blah... France defends its own interests in African countries...blah blah. Of course they do, so what?
And speaking of cherry picking, what about the rest of the BBC article that liists all the issues NOT cuased by the interventions of France?
EOT for me.
Frog: So the Meloni quote was in the first article, not the second, big deal: In 2019, Giorgia Meloni, [...], addressed the issue of the CFA franc to denounce the supposed exploitation of West Africa by France, disseminating false information and countless approximations along the way.
cow: You cant read, you cant even get your FIRST and SECONDs right.
Frog: I take note that you now attribute dissent and riots to the presence of French troops in the country, and no longe to the CFA. We're making progress.
cow: Previously you said there were NO riots of any kind because of ANY current french actions...
Now you admit my statements are true.
My statement about France having a colonial empire in everything but name is ttrue, its far more true than your denial that they do not have a colonial empire of any kind. Everything Fr does today is the very definition of a colony, they are imposing their will on those african countries to help themselvevs and the West African people see this and thats why they are protecting.
Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested Saturday night by French authorities on allegations that his social media platform was being used for child pornography, drug trafficking and organized crime. The move sparked debate over free speech worldwide from prominent anti-censorship figures including Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. and Edward Snowden. However, "the immediate freakout came from Russia," reports Politico. "That's because Telegram is widely used by the Russian military for battlefield communications thanks to problems with rolling out its own secure comms system. It's also the primary vehicle for pro-war military bloggers and media -- as well as millions of ordinary Russians." From the report:
"They practically detained the head of communication of the Russian army," Russian military blogger channel Povernutie na Z Voine said in a Telegram statement. The blog site Dva Mayora said that Russian specialists are working on an alternative to Telegram, but that the Russian army's Main Communications Directorate has "not shown any real interest" in getting such a system to Russian troops. The site said Durov's arrest may actually speed up the development of an independent comms system. Alarmed Russian policymakers are calling for Durov's release.
"[Durov's] arrest may have political grounds and be a tool for gaining access to the personal information of Telegram users," the Deputy Speaker of the Russian Duma Vladislav Davankov said in a Telegram statement. "This cannot be allowed. If the French authorities refuse to release Pavel Durov from custody, I propose making every effort to move him to the UAE or the Russian Federation. With his consent, of course." Their worry is that Durov may hand over encryption keys to the French authorities, allowing access to the platform and any communications that users thought was encrypted.
French President Emmanuel Macron said Monday that the arrest of Durov was "in no way a political decision." The Russian embassy has demanded that it get access to Durov, but the Kremlin has so far not issued a statement on the arrest. "Before saying anything, we should wait for the situation to become clearer," said Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov. However, officials and law enforcement agencies were instructed to clear all their communication from Telegram, the pro-Kremlin channel Baza reported. "Everyone who is used to using the platform for sensitive conversations/conversations should delete those conversations right now and not do it again," Kremlin propagandist Margarita Simonyan said in a Telegram post. "Durov has been shut down to get the keys. And he's going to give them."
That arrest warrant has been open for several YEARS and he's been fully aware of it the entire time, avoiding travel to the EU as a result
Why would someone supposedly on the run fly directly to France to a private airport and meet the Gendarmerie as he stepped off the plane?
This was clearly prearranged. The question is why he no longer felt safe in Dubai
Pavel Durov has four citizenships: Russian, Saint Kitts and Nevis, French, and UAE. Out of all those France is the safest country for him with the best protection of his rights, plus France would not extradite a French citizen to Russia.
The question is whether Durov and the French authorities have been planning this for three years and whether that's why he got French citizenship so easily.
That arrest warrant has been open for several YEARS and he's been fully aware of it the entire time, avoiding travel to the EU as a result
Do you have a source for that? It would be curious to fly to France if that were true. And also curious why his detention was extended, if there were already existing charges.
Why would someone supposedly on the run fly directly to France to a private airport and meet the Gendarmerie as he stepped off the plane?
Indeed. There's speculation that they tried to change the flight plan and flight tracking shows a bit of a detour around Reims. So whether the plane was ordered to land in Paris. But seems odd to fly from Azerbaijan to Paris for refuelling. I guess that depends on what the final destination was going to be, but an odd route to take if that was back to Dubai.
This was clearly prearranged. The question is why he no longer felt safe in Dubai
Not sure it means Dubai was unsafe, other than maybe because it has extradition treaties with France. But if France wanted to extradite from Dubai, Durov would have had the opportunity to challenge that decision in the Dubai courts.
Not sure it means Dubai was unsafe, other than maybe because it has extradition treaties with France. But if France wanted to extradite from Dubai, Durov would have had the opportunity to challenge that decision in the Dubai courts.
Dubai's business model is that they don't extradite criminals that don't shit on their own doorstep. That's why it's such a criminal Mecca. Nearly half of Europe's cocaine trade is managed through European gangsters that have moved to Dubai. The entire 'Costa del Crime' now lives there.
So, no, I don't think it's extradition by Dubai that made Durov choose France. If he worries that he has pissed of Putin then he may have felt unsafe in Dubai. The windows in Dubai tend to be quite high up.
That's why it's such a criminal Mecca. Nearly half of Europe's cocaine trade is managed through European gangsters that have moved to Dubai. The entire 'Costa del Crime' now lives there.
UAE has been arresting and deporting some of those, but could be a reason Durov is being leant on, ie making Telegram's secret messaging less secret. But if that happens, the serious & organised criminals will just fiind other ways to communicate.
If he worries that he has pissed of Putin then he may have felt unsafe in Dubai. The windows in Dubai tend to be quite high up.
Or he's maybe pissed off someone else. Russian and Ukrainian oligarch wars tend to be pretty brutal. Plus both states aren't opposed to assassinations, eg Ukraine bombing journalists, or Russia assassinating a Russian helicopter pilot who defected in Spain.
This was clearly prearranged. The question is why he no longer felt safe in Dubai
And why he went to Azerbaijan, reportedly tried and failed to meet with Putin, then went from Azerbaijan to France.
And why Azerbaijan is now pledging to help French overseas territories seek independence shortly after being accused by France of fomenting riots in New Caledonia and why it's joining BRICS.
Wow you are really simple if you think this is the first time Durov tried to meet Putin. Also you really should be asking yourself how a platform with no visible form of income and yet he is a billionaire and allowed to operate in Russia when so many others are banned.
Doesnt take a genius to figure out he is number 1 and supported by Russia not because he is Russian but because he is a tool of Putin.
Cowardly Person wrote:
And why he went to Azerbaijan, reportedly tried and failed to meet with Putin,
I'm inclined to think this whole "Putin refused his request to meet in Azerbaijan" story was a made-up fiction.
Think about it.
Durov is a narcissist in the same vein as Musk and Trump. People like that NEVER admit they did something that failed, ESPECIALLY not when the other party involved is a globally well-known figure.
Even if it actually happened, he was traveling on a private jet. If he kept quiet about it the likelihood anyone would have ever known about or suspected such a thing is virtually nil. Especially given that he has recently written Telegram posts about his recent visits to a variety of post-Soviet states, so this would come as little surprise.
Something very fishy is going on, but I doubt it has anything to do with some "failed meeting" in Azerbaijan.
It MAY have something to do with an ACTUAL meeting that happened in Azerbaijan, however.
This is not about crime. Crimes are planned, promoted and discussed on many platforms including mobile phones. Do you see any mobile phone operators being prosecuted or any compliant social media companies such as Facebook? Durov's arrest is a political move on the journey to snub out free speech. The leaders we have now, care nothing for the people, they only care for their own power and the NWO project. Are you aware Durov turned down approaches from the CIA for a backdoor into Telegram? This is the modern version of Niemoller's quote:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
