The article mention that he is detained for investigation:
Durov was traveling aboard his private jet, TF1 said on its website, adding he had been targeted by an arrest warrant in France as part of a preliminary police investigation.
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.
Now we are detaining CEOs for potential criminal activity on their platforms, I expect to see many other CEOs behind bars before the end of the weekend
Hate on billionaires all you want, but a platform like this shouldn’t be forced to moderate. It runs completely counter to the USP of the app. It’s encrypted anonymous communication capabilities.
It’s encrypted anonymous communication capabilities.
Unless you enable it for every single chat (and IIRC only available for chats with only two persons, not group chats) there’s no encryption. Or did they change that? The only encryption that applies to most chats on that platform should be transport encryption via TLS.
That’s not correct. There’s user to server encryption, just not e2e. It’s less secure, sure, but given that they want to arrest the CEO over his compromise on keeping that actually private, it seems trustworthy enough, and has been over the years.
That’s exactly what the comment said: The only encryption that applies to most chats on that platform should be transport encryption via TLS. It’s about the same level of encryption as Lemmy PMs.
The fact that Telegram doesn’t cooperate with French authorities doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cooperate with other authorities or sell your data to the highest bidder. They have all the technical means for it.
Don’t use a regular Telegram chat if your life depends on the messages being private. Use XMPP, Matrix with E2EE, or at the very least Signal. Heck, even WhatsApp is (reportedly) better, as it claims to provide E2EE and that’s been checked by some security professionals who have been given access to the source code. If you absolutely must use Telegram for something like that, only use secret chats.
The article mention that he is detained for investigation:
Now we are detaining CEOs for potential criminal activity on their platforms, I expect to see many other CEOs behind bars before the end of the weekend
I imagine every platform has crime happening on it.
Probably only ones the NSA can’t backdoor.
I don’t like that at all.
Hate on billionaires all you want, but a platform like this shouldn’t be forced to moderate. It runs completely counter to the USP of the app. It’s encrypted anonymous communication capabilities.
Unless you enable it for every single chat (and IIRC only available for chats with only two persons, not group chats) there’s no encryption. Or did they change that? The only encryption that applies to most chats on that platform should be transport encryption via TLS.
No
That’s not correct. There’s user to server encryption, just not e2e. It’s less secure, sure, but given that they want to arrest the CEO over his compromise on keeping that actually private, it seems trustworthy enough, and has been over the years.
That’s exactly what the comment said:
The only encryption that applies to most chats on that platform should be transport encryption via TLS. It’s about the same level of encryption as Lemmy PMs.The fact that Telegram doesn’t cooperate with French authorities doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cooperate with other authorities or sell your data to the highest bidder. They have all the technical means for it.
Don’t use a regular Telegram chat if your life depends on the messages being private. Use XMPP, Matrix with E2EE, or at the very least Signal. Heck, even WhatsApp is (reportedly) better, as it claims to provide E2EE and that’s been checked by some security professionals who have been given access to the source code. If you absolutely must use Telegram for something like that, only use secret chats.
I see, perhaps I’m just unfamiliar with the criminal justice system in France
In the United States, this would not be considered an arrest, but an investigative detention (a minor but important distinction)
Oh, that makes sense