Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, has expressed dismay over recent actions taken by French authorities. In a statement, Durov criticized the arrest of an individual, citing that the French authorities had not contacted Telegram’s official channels before proceeding with the arrest. Durov described the move as “misguided,” highlighting the complexities of balancing user privacy and law enforcement needs. This incident has brought to light ongoing debates about privacy, security, and the responsibilities of tech companies in regulating content on their platforms
“Durov, now a French national, was detained late last month in France amid an investigation into crimes related to child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions associated with the app” The Guardian. French authorities reportedly considered Durov personally responsible for the illegal use of Telegram by third parties, as they had not received responses to their requests for cooperation with the platform.
Durov expressed his shock at this development, noting several points that he found perplexing:
- Available Communication Channels: Telegram has an official representative in the EU that manages and replies to requests from EU authorities. Durov stressed that this contact information is publicly available and can easily be found by searching for “Telegram EU address for law enforcement.”
- Past Cooperation: Durov highlighted that he is a French citizen and a frequent visitor to the French consulate in Dubai. He has previously helped the French authorities establish a direct communication channel with Telegram to handle potential terrorism threats within France. This shows a history of cooperation between the company and French law enforcement.
- Legal Approach: He criticized the French authorities for using outdated laws to hold a CEO accountable for third-party misuse of a platform. According to Durov, the standard procedure is to pursue legal action against the service itself rather than targeting the CEO with charges related to the actions of platform users.
Durov underscored the need for a balanced approach between user privacy and law enforcement requirements. He acknowledged the complexities in aligning privacy laws with regulatory expectations, especially in countries with differing laws and technological limitations. He emphasized that Telegram has always been committed to engaging with regulators to find the right balance between privacy and security while ensuring processes are consistent globally.
In his statement, Durov mentioned that Telegram is not afraid to leave markets that demand excessive compromises on their principles. He cited past incidents where Telegram was banned in Russia and Iran due to the company’s refusal to compromise on user privacy by providing encryption keys or blocking channels. Telegram’s firm stance against such demands is rooted in its commitment to defending basic rights, particularly in regions where these rights are under threat.
While acknowledging that Telegram is not perfect, Durov pointed out that the platform is far from being an “anarchic paradise” as portrayed by some media outlets. The company takes down millions of harmful posts and channels daily and maintains transparency through daily reports. Despite these efforts, he admitted that there are voices calling for further improvement, especially in light of the platform’s rapid growth to 950 million users, which has posed challenges in preventing criminal abuse.
Durov concluded by stating his personal commitment to ensuring that Telegram significantly improves its processes to better manage such challenges. He hinted that more details on their progress would be shared soon, emphasizing his hope that the events of August would lead to a safer and stronger social networking industry.
Durov’s statement on his telegram channel: “Last month I got interviewed by police for 4 days after arriving in Paris. I was told I may be personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram, because the French authorities didn’t receive responses from Telegram.
This was surprising for several reasons:
1. Telegram has an official representative in the EU that accepts and replies to EU requests. Its email address has been publicly available for anyone in the EU who googles “Telegram EU address for law enforcement”.
2. The French authorities had numerous ways to reach me to request assistance. As a French citizen, I was a frequent guest at the French consulate in Dubai. A while ago, when asked, I personally helped them establish a hotline with Telegram to deal with the threat of terrorism in France.
3. If a country is unhappy with an internet service, the established practice is to start a legal action against the service itself. Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach. Building technology is hard enough as it is. No innovator will ever build new tools if they know they can be personally held responsible for potential abuse of those tools.
Establishing the right balance between privacy and security is not easy. You have to reconcile privacy laws with law enforcement requirements, and local laws with EU laws. You have to take into account technological limitations. As a platform, you want your processes to be consistent globally, while also ensuring they are not abused in countries with weak rule of law. We’ve been committed to engaging with regulators to find the right balance. Yes, we stand by our principles: our experience is shaped by our mission to protect our users in authoritarian regimes. But we’ve always been open to dialogue.
Sometimes we can’t agree with a country’s regulator on the right balance between privacy and security. In those cases, we are ready to leave that country. We’ve done it many times. When Russia demanded we hand over “encryption keys” to enable surveillance, we refused — and Telegram got banned in Russia. When Iran demanded we block channels of peaceful protesters, we refused — and Telegram got banned in Iran. We are prepared to leave markets that aren’t compatible with our principles, because we are not doing this for money. We are driven by the intention to bring good and defend the basic rights of people, particularly in places where these rights are violated.
All of that does not mean Telegram is perfect. Even the fact that authorities could be confused by where to send requests is something that we should improve. But the claims in some media that Telegram is some sort of anarchic paradise are absolutely untrue. We take down millions of harmful posts and channels every day. We publish daily transparency reports (like this or this ). We have direct hotlines with NGOs to process urgent moderation requests faster.
However, we hear voices saying that it’s not enough. Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.
I hope that the events of August will result in making Telegram — and the social networking industry as a whole — safer and stronger. Thanks again for your love and memes”
10 Advices to Avoid Similar Issues in the Future:
- Ensure Clear Communication Channels: Tech companies should make sure that their contact points for law enforcement agencies are easily accessible and well-publicized.
- Regular Engagement with Authorities: Platforms should actively engage with law enforcement agencies to clarify procedures for handling requests and legal actions.
- Adopt Transparent Policies: Implement and publish clear policies on how data requests are handled to prevent misunderstandings.
- Legal Alignment: Ensure that company policies comply with both local and international regulations, particularly for cross-border platforms like Telegram.
- Enhance Cooperation with Law Enforcement: Proactively work with authorities to establish secure, efficient communication lines for urgent moderation and legal matters.
- Educate Law Enforcement: Companies should offer educational sessions to law enforcement agencies to better understand the technological landscape and privacy implications.
- Regular Transparency Reports: Provide detailed and frequent transparency reports to show the measures taken against illegal activities and ensure accountability.
- Adopt International Best Practices: Follow globally accepted standards and practices to maintain consistency in data privacy and user protection.
- Maintain a Balance between Privacy and Security: Strive to balance user privacy with law enforcement needs without compromising fundamental rights.
- Stay Proactive in Regulatory Engagement: Actively participate in policy discussions and consultations to shape regulations that benefit both users and companies.
Conclusion:
Pavel Durov’s criticism of the French authorities underscores the challenges of maintaining a balance between user privacy and regulatory compliance in today’s digital world. As tech companies continue to navigate these complexities, cooperation, transparency, and a commitment to upholding users’ rights remain crucial. By fostering better communication and understanding between tech companies and authorities, the industry can aim for more coherent and effective cybersecurity and data privacy regulations.
Want to stay on top of cybersecurity news? Follow us on Facebook – X (Twitter) – Instagram – LinkedIn – for the latest threats, insights, and updates!
