Telegram always elicits bizarre reactions from the public. On one side there’s actual security professionals saying don’t use Telegram because it’s not fully E2E encrypted, and on the other side there’s people who are convinced that it’s secure because Marketing and that there’s this big conspiracy to stop people from using Telegram.
The real conspiracy theory is: Telegram have never made any attempt to either implement full E2E or to dissuade their users for using it for politically sensitive messages. Why not?
> The real conspiracy theory is: Telegram have never made any attempt to either implement full E2E or to dissuade their users for using it for politically sensitive messages. Why not?
Could be something nefarious or could be because not doing things is easier than doing things. Why bother if the existing conditions are just fine (for Telegram)?
I sincerely doubt that Telegram makes most of it's money by being this kind of host. I don't generally give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to _communication_ platforms. I also see zero evidence that Telegram's existence or policies help promote or create crime in any way.
It's not conspiratorial to refuse to show deference to the government which currently only has vague accusations to justify jailing a CEO. If the French government was so concerned about the criminal aspect then they should just order Telegram to not operate in France or they should work to block it at a national level.
The problem, the reaction, and the solution are not at all aligned here. Why anyone would jump in to defend the government's actions is absolutely beyond me.
> "which currently only has vague accusations to justify jailing a CEO"
If they are charging him and intend to convict, they have specific accusations, unless the French legal system is much different than the rest of the western world.
> "If the French government was so concerned about the criminal aspect then they should just order Telegram to not operate in France or they should work to block it at a national level."
Many governments with anti-CSAM laws exercise universal jurisdiction in those statues (i.e. they will to prosecute anyone for those crimes regardless of where they were committed and regardless if the person in question is a citizen), that being said it isn't entirely relevant here since the defendant is a French citizen. I would fully expect a government with CSAM accusations to prosecute those involved in facilitating such not just "block" them.
It's worth noting that the person in question was just arrested, so the trial hasn't happened yet, and yes the government could be full of shit, that would presumably come out at trial as dropped charges or an acquittal.
Precisely. So the constant need for people to gatekeep in here and chastise other people for having a negative view of the French government's actions is, to me, absurd.
> and yes the government could be full of shit
Yes. That's the assertion based upon the balance of history and probability and the complete disconnect between these actions and actual law enforcement outcomes.
> that would presumably come out at trial as dropped charges or an acquittal.
That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it.
> I sincerely doubt that Telegram makes most of it's money by being this kind of host.
One thing I did find suspicious about Telegram was that accounts that are restricted for "spam" can create a new account and pay for a premium license to remove the restrictions on the new account. Seemed like a racket to me.
