The arrest of Pavel Durov and the French Constitution

[Linkey]

In August 2025, the owner of Telegram Pavel Durov was arrested in France. The French policemen accused him that because of the lack of the moderation in Telegram, the Telegram had become a platform for criminals like drug dealers.
I am not sure that this arrest of Durov was legal. If I am not mistaken, the constitutions of all Western countries declare the right of secrecy of correspondence. Possibly all they were derived from the Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
Because people like drug dealers use messengers for communication, the policemen indeed need to read their correspondence; so it seems that Durov was arrested because he didn't let the French policemen the possibility to read the correspondence of the Telegram users. But what about the constitution? If you think that the police must have the right to read our correspondence for struggling with the criminals - that's ok, but firstly you should change the constitution. Can you comment this?

[TheVat]

Wasn't Durov also allowing the sexual exploitation of children through Telegram?  And it was used to coordinate anti immigrant violence by extremist groups in the UK, as I recall.  I don't think such activities are protected by international law or most national constitutions.  Private messages can be intercepted, when there is a court warrant and in cases where serious harm to persons is concerned.  I am thinking you do not have children, that you would even think of excusing this bastard with some legalistic appeal.  He was operating a cesspool.  F him and everyone involved.

[MSC]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Wasn't Durov also allowing the sexual exploitation of children through Telegram?  And it was used to coordinate anti immigrant violence by extremist groups in the UK, as I recall.  I don't think such activities are protected by international law or most national constitutions.  Private messages can be intercepted, when there is a court warrant and in cases where serious harm to persons is concerned.  I am thinking you do not have children, that you would even think of excusing this bastard with some legalistic appeal.  He was operating a cesspool.  F him and everyone involved.

Yup I agree. Two words; Hague Convention. When it comes to protecting children, even countries that don't have extradition treaties with each other, will for this. +1

Also @OP I'm assuming you mean August 2024? We haven't had August 2025 yet...

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Wasn't Durov also allowing the sexual exploitation of children through Telegram?  And it was used to coordinate anti immigrant violence by extremist groups in the UK, as I recall.  I don't think such activities are protected by international law or most national constitutions.  Private messages can be intercepted, when there is a court warrant and in cases where serious harm to persons is concerned.  I am thinking you do not have children, that you would even think of excusing this bastard with some legalistic appeal.  He was operating a cesspool.  F him and everyone involved.

This is nonsense. It doesn't work that way in IT. Facebook, Twitter/X or any other crap, i.e. social media, would have to decrypt all messages with anyone and then back them up (in case someone finds out in 5 years that you might be a rapist or whatever). Then the whole HTTPS is pointless and misleading.. Privacy doesn't exist. Is that what you are suggesting?

Whatever you write in the Messanger is archived. And anything can be used against you at any possible time from that point on.

If you have a communicator that does data encryption when you type it in the app, and raw data sent through a central server (which is just a proxy for raw data between the two phones on which the app is installed), there is no sense of backing up data which are not understandable and undecryptable.

I have created my own Facebook-like communicator apps.. simply a copy of Messenger only without all the surrounding that spies on you all the time, and backs up data “for backup”.. I just created my own Facebook/X..

This is called end-to-end encryption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption

 

If you talk to someone through Messenger and write that your washing machine burned out, for example, and immediately start getting ads for washing machines or services for repairing electronics, that's the best proof that they know what you wrote about with someone in a private conversation. You might as well have written about how you got drunk and puked, or other embarrassing things. The best way to commit debilitation is to turn on the cloud with a backup of your phone data. On which, of course, you keep your photos and videos with lovers and mistresses..

 

Things make it difficult for people who don't have a brain to understand what's going on it's called “data synchronization between devices”....

 

If you record your sextape on your iPhone, and then you also want it on your iMac. Or you record your sextape on your Android phone and then want it on your computer as well, the most common way is to “sync your data between devices” via various clouds. If you do this, all your sext tapes will now be on “their” servers. Forever accessible.

If there is end-to-end encryption (real, not just fake for the public), all they have is a handful of meaningless data on their proxy servers.

 

I think with your statement you have shown that you have been pretty much brainwashed by these child-porn campaign etc. so it is necessary to protect the children (and in the meantime steal the data of all the people who have done nothing, but can in the future, in 10-20 years)

 

Either you have data encryption on the client side (end-to-end encryption), and the server does nothing but proxy this unknown data, or you have total surveillance (because you are not sure that your data is not analyzed in real time and backed up).

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Sensei

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

In August 2025, the owner of Telegram Pavel Durov was arrested in France. The French policemen accused him that because of the lack of the moderation in Telegram, the Telegram had become a platform for criminals like drug dealers.
I am not sure that this arrest of Durov was legal. If I am not mistaken, the constitutions of all Western countries declare the right of secrecy of correspondence. Possibly all they were derived from the Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
Because people like drug dealers use messengers for communication, the policemen indeed need to read their correspondence; so it seems that Durov was arrested because he didn't let the French policemen the possibility to read the correspondence of the Telegram users. But what about the constitution? If you think that the police must have the right to read our correspondence for struggling with the criminals - that's ok, but firstly you should change the constitution. Can you comment this?

I don't see anything in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic about secrecy of correspondence: https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/constitution-of-4-october-1958  What are you referring to?

As for the UK, there is, famously, no written constitution at all. In fact there are specific laws allowing the authorities to access correspondence, under certain circumstances.

I don't know about other western countries but these examples indicate you are mistaken. 

Edited 22 hours ago by exchemist

[Sensei]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't see anything in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic about secrecy of correspondence: https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/constitution-of-4-october-1958  What are you referring to?

As for the UK, there is, famously, no written constitution at all. In fact there are specific laws allowing the authorities to access correspondence, under certain circumstances.

I don't know about other western countries but these examples indicate you are mistaken. 

This is an IT issue: you have end-to-end data encryption between two parties or you don't (and anyone can read it, steal it, misuse it, alter it (to pretend that you wrote it) etc.).

With (true, not fake just for public) end-to-end encryption in the built-in communication application, the social media owner has no idea what the parties are talking about. So they can't hand them over to the rule of democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian authorities.

Democratic authorities in the Western world have become a fraud - they demand data to which they have no right and impose their idiotic regulations to which they have no right. Well, for how can you call the fact that some politician will tell you how to write your own computer application, just because he/she wants to get access to the data of, for example, his/her political opponent?

The problem with Durov would be if he gave access to user data, their conversations to the Russians, for example, and at the same time did not give them to the French authorities. But in a real end-to-end system this is almost not impossible i.e. social media IT company would have to make a special version of the application for only one user, force him to upgrade his 'good' version (with cooperation with Google Play Store and Apple Store), then you have the data decoded, and then make the upgrade to the next 'good' one..

Edited 22 hours ago by Sensei

[Linkey]

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't see anything in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic about secrecy of correspondence: https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/constitution-of-4-october-1958  What are you referring to?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_la_correspondance

 

Autotranslation:

 

Quote

In France, the violation of the secrecy of correspondence, whether it circulates by post or by a telecommunications network, is currently punishable by articles 226-15 [archive] and 432-9 [archive] of the penal code and by article L 33-1 [archive] of the postal and electronic communications code.

 

[CharonY]

I think the most straightforward way to address OP is to look at the lawsuit and check what he has been charged with. I don't think that arguing constitutional principles are particular helpful, except to test whether the specific laws he was charged with are indeed unconstitutional.

The wiki page is somewhat unhelpful as they mostly reference multiple charges including complicity and negligence. However, I have not seen any deeper analyses suggesting how these are defined under French law.

The only thing I have seen is the issue of encryption, which Sensei mentioned. Here it appears that Telegram does not have automated end-to-end encryption, it has less robust standards and requires manual opt-in, which apparently was not always done and potentially invited scrutiny from law enforcement. But again, I have only seen speculative articles. One would probably need to see how it plays out in court.

 

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, Linkey said:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_la_correspondance

 

Autotranslation:

 

 

Firstly this is not the constitution and secondly there are two references in the section on Article 432 concerning the case of public officials acting “hors les cases prevus par le loi”. This implies there are other laws that may override this one in particular cases, most likely concerning public safety and security.

I see little point in you trying to relitigate a case in a jurisdiction you know nothing about.

Edited 22 hours ago by exchemist

[Sensei]

30 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The only thing I have seen is the issue of encryption, which Sensei mentioned. Here it appears that Telegram does not have automated end-to-end encryption, it has less robust standards and requires manual opt-in, which apparently was not always done and potentially invited scrutiny from law enforcement. But again, I have only seen speculative articles. One would probably need to see how it plays out in court.

If you can turn end-to-end encryption on or off on demand, anyone in the server center can switch it on at any request from someone nearby, just for a few seconds, without even bothering to upload a new version of the application to the client (phone of victim).. so basically security shit..

 

I once tried to register on Telegram and the first thing it asked was my phone number. Why the hell would anyone need an app that requires you to enter your phone number? It's like you've already given everything.. On this shit iPhone, a phone number is all you need to hack into it..

It immediately put me off..

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

Privacy doesn't exist. Is that what you are suggesting?

No.  Not sure if your translator is working properly.  I said only that, in cases of child exploitation or serious crime, it is lawful to seek a warrant from a court to examine their communication.  As others noted, public safety can override some laws, and there are ethical grounds that need to be established before a judge.

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

I think with your statement you have shown that you have been pretty much brainwashed by these child-porn campaign etc.

There is no call for this kind of trolling.  You clearly did not understand my statement.  And I wasn't singling out child porn as the only type of criminal activity where such surveillance warrants can be applied for.  

[Sensei]

@TheVat

You clearly have no idea what we're talking about. Or you pretend you have no idea..

 

We only have two options:

1) end-to-end encryption (and no way to guess what people are talking about, without hacking their devices)

or

2) full surveillance (due to the ability to tell what people were/are talking about).

 

Nobody talks about child porn. This is about whether the social media IT company has (or has not) access to anything you (and anyone else on the planet) are talking about in a private message.

If you're having an affair with a woman, Google and Apple will be the first to know about it, long before you tell your friends and your wife is the last to know.

If you have end-to-end encryption, they (Google/Apple/X/FB etc) don't know. If you don't have end-to-end encryption at all times (no opt-in/opt-out), they know.

 

If I am creating an application, a communications application, that encrypts everything a person says on their computer, and then the encrypted data is transmitted. The social media operator has no idea what this data is, so no government can ask the social media to disclose it. Social media has no idea what they are talking about. It's encrypted, encoded, compressed, whatever. Asking to reveal a private transmission by social media operator between X and Y makes no sense. This is end-to-end encryption.

 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I said only that, in cases of child exploitation or serious crime,

There is no child exploitation or serious crime..

..you don't know what people X and Y were talking about..

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

it is lawful to seek a warrant from a court to examine their communication.

..the data are encrypted and court nor social media operator has no access to it..

 

 

If you lost your phone and someone found it and stole it, Google knows who stole it by name and surname and where that person lives. the police don't know this. the government doesn't know this. And Google knows.

(if you registered/signed in to a Google account on this phone)

 

 

  

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

There is no call for this kind of trolling. 

What trolling? You're the one trolling. Read Wikipedia if you don't understand what we're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption

 

 

This is the same (equivalent) situation as the "USA Patriot Act" (which has nothing to do with patriotism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Patriot_Act

 

Fox News or other extremist TV reporters ask people "do you support The Patriot Act?"

They have no idea what the act is about, but the name is constructed in such a way that you can't say you are against it, so they say they are for it..

 

 

Are you for or against "the act to combat child pornography"? How can you say no to something like that?

In that law you can  insert anything that literally makes you a slave.

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Sensei

[CharonY]

I think folks are talking about slightly different things. If I understand correctly, Sensei's argument is if information is fully encrypted and has no gaps in any form, it basically does not exist for most intents and purposes.

What TheVat is arguing is more about the principles of access up when there is a cause. This would potentially provide access to things that are accessible- perhaps account name, for example. And while encrypted info could theoretically fall under such court orders, it would not be feasible to access it. And potentially because of that it would also not be possible to ascertain whether that data would fall under a court order (unlessthe order is very broad, which might or might not be lawful, depending on jurisdiction).

[Sensei]

The arrest occurred because the IT programmer refused to create a backdoor for his own security systems..

 

A Kremlin mafia gang took over his “Russian Facebook” in 2015:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-founder-of-russias-facebook-explains-how-the-kremlin-took-his-company-away-2015-5?IR=T

 

Now the French courts, influenced by politicians, are attacking him after he was exiled from Russia..

Quote

 

The founder of Russia's most popular social network recently described to Mashable how he chose to flee his native Moscow after Kremlin loyalists wrested control of the company away from him.

Pavel Durov, 30, seen by many as Russia's Mark Zuckerberg, created the website VKontakte — which had 69 million monthly users — before drawing the ire of Russian FSB agents when political protest pages began sprouting up.

When Durov refused to shut down the page of activist Alexei Navalny, the FSB showed up at his door with automatic rifles, demanding to be let in.

"I was really scared," Durov admitted in a rare interview in Brooklyn, NY. "For the first time I thought, ‘maybe I should think about the future - the future of my country and of my company.’"

Durov was never interested in politics — he claims his defiance of the Kremlin when they ordered him to remove the VKontakte pages of activists was more a business decision than a political statement: He simply didn't want users to become disillusioned and start using another network.

"Since I'm obviously a believer in free markets, it's hard for me to understand the current direction of the country," Durov The New York Times in December

After the Kremlin launched a smear campaign against him in 2013 and raided the VKontakte office for company documents, however, "I began to understand that this was political,” Durov told Mashable.

The Kremlin was largely successful in its attempts to damage Durov's credibility with both users and investors.

But it did get his company.
AP471071209811
A user of Russia’s leading social network internet site VKontakte, poses holding an iPhone showing the account page of Pavel Durov, the former CEO and founder of VKontakte, in Red Square in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, April 23, 2014. Pavel Golovkin/AP

'I had no power within the company'

In late 2013, an investment firm in Moscow with connections to the Kremlin bought a 48% stake in VKontakte from two of the company's biggest investors — a deal allegedly been orchestrated by Rosneft head and Putin loyalist Igor Sechin as a way to exert greater control over the network.

It was then when Durov realized that the Kremlin "was coming after me," he told Mashable, and he decided to leave for New York via Venice. He returned to Russia briefly after things cooled down, but by that point he had all but completely lost control of VKontakte.

In February 2014, he relinquished administrative control entirely and sold his remaining stake to Putin loyalist Ivan Tavrin, staying on as director general until he resigned from the company for good in April.

"It was time to get out because at that point I had no power within the company," he said.
'CIA project'
Vladimir Putin
Russian President Vladimir Putin listens during an annual call-in show on Russian television "Conversation With Vladimir Putin" in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, April 16, 2015. AP

When Durov founded the website in 2006, Russian authorities were still tolerant of Internet freedom.

"The best thing about Russia at that time was the Internet sphere was completely not regulated," Durov told the Times. "In some ways, it was more liberal than the United States."

Russia President Vladimir Putin's skepticism of the web spiked in 2011 when people started using the Internet to protest what they believed were rigged parliamentary elections.

"The opinion of the blogosphere ... is aimed at undermining people's trust in the state," a Kremlin official said that year.

Putin was also suspicious of the global Internet as a platform for foreign espionage. After documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the agency's ability to infiltrate social media networks, Putin dismissed the Internet as a "CIA project" and hinted at plans to create a Russian-run alternative to the world wide web which be easier for the Kremlin to monitor.
Pavel Durov at the DLD Conference 2012 - Day 3
Nadine Rupp/Getty Images

Durov has new project called Telegram that's a secure — and free — messaging app used by around 50 million people (including some Kremlin officials).

He continues to travel extensively because "Me myself, I'm not a big fan of the idea of countries," he told the Times.

"I'm very happy right now without any property anywhere," he added. "I consider myself a legal citizen of the world."

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Sensei

[bearcat22]

Setting aside the OP specific example, it isn't particularly uncommon for constitutional restrictions to be ignored or circumvented by a government.

America, for example, set aside several provisions of the Bill of Rights immediately after the 9/11 attack.

During the American civil war, suspected spies were imprisoned without trial, and newspapers critical of the North were shut down.

A constitution isn't necessarily an immutable set of rules.

  Most constitutions include language describing how they can be amended, when, and by whom.

Many citizens of America have mistaken ideas regarding what their "rights" are.

[swansont]

 

19 minutes ago, bearcat22 said:

Setting aside the OP specific example, it isn't particularly uncommon for constitutional restrictions to be ignored or circumvented by a government.

America, for example, set aside several provisions of the Bill of Rights immediately after the 9/11 attack.

If you’re going to claim that it’s uncommon, citing an uncommon event doesn’t support your claim. You should also be specific. What provisions were “set aside”? (as opposed to eroded)

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

@TheVat

You clearly have no idea what we're talking about. Or you pretend you have no idea..

 

We only have two options:

1) end-to-end encryption (and no way to guess what people are talking about, without hacking their devices)

or

2) full surveillance (due to the ability to tell what people were/are talking about).

 

Nobody talks about child porn. This is about whether the social media IT company has (or has not) access to anything you (and anyone else on the planet) are talking about in a private message.

If you're having an affair with a woman, Google and Apple will be the first to know about it, long before you tell your friends and your wife is the last to know.

If you have end-to-end encryption, they (Google/Apple/X/FB etc) don't know. If you don't have end-to-end encryption at all times (no opt-in/opt-out), they know.

 

If I am creating an application, a communications application, that encrypts everything a person says on their computer, and then the encrypted data is transmitted. The social media operator has no idea what this data is, so no government can ask the social media to disclose it. Social media has no idea what they are talking about. It's encrypted, encoded, compressed, whatever. Asking to reveal a private transmission by social media operator between X and Y makes no sense. This is end-to-end encryption.

 

There is no child exploitation or serious crime..

..you don't know what people X and Y were talking about..

..the data are encrypted and court nor social media operator has no access to it..

 

 

If you lost your phone and someone found it and stole it, Google knows who stole it by name and surname and where that person lives. the police don't know this. the government doesn't know this. And Google knows.

(if you registered/signed in to a Google account on this phone)

 

 

  

What trolling? You're the one trolling. Read Wikipedia if you don't understand what we're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption

 

 

This is the same (equivalent) situation as the "USA Patriot Act" (which has nothing to do with patriotism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Patriot_Act

 

Fox News or other extremist TV reporters ask people "do you support The Patriot Act?"

They have no idea what the act is about, but the name is constructed in such a way that you can't say you are against it, so they say they are for it..

 

 

Are you for or against "the act to combat child pornography"? How can you say no to something like that?

In that law you can  insert anything that literally makes you a slave.

 

 

On the contrary, @TheVat and I have been addressing the OP, which was asking about points of law concerning interception of correspondence by the state. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

This is an IT issue: you have end-to-end data encryption between two parties or you don't (and anyone can read it, steal it, misuse it, alter it (to pretend that you wrote it) etc.).

No, it’s a rights issue. Nobody else was discussing IT issues here. (and Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption on by default, so unless someon establishes that it was being used, this is all moot.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_la_correspondance

 

Autotranslation:

 

 

So you have your answer: it’s a matter of law, not of enumerated rights. (similar to the situation in the US, as well)

[bearcat22]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

If you’re going to claim that it’s uncommon, citing an uncommon event doesn’t support your claim. You should also be specific. What provisions were “set aside”? (as opposed to eroded)

I cited some specific uncommon instances, but I don't feel particularly obliged to accommodate your rudeness.

If you doubt any of my statements, I could not care less. Feel free to refute, if you can. 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, it’s a rights issue. Nobody else was discussing IT issues here. (and Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption on by default, so unless someon establishes that it was being used, this is all moot.

Nonsense. If the authority steps in and says to IT company “give me all your data between X and Y” or give me all the data of “X” (the client).. It's all a matter of IT. Because you have no idea how it is all implemented internally. The social media server should only be a proxy between two parties talking to each other, when they do a private correspondence, not a backup server of any data. It's even desirable for an IT company not to make backups of transmission, regardless if it is encrypted or unencrypted, because it means less data has to be stored on disks, which means lower costs.

Your point of view on this issue depends on your point of standing. As if Trump ordered Telegram/FB/X etc. to give data of private conversations of Kamala Harris, Biden, or your own, you would be outraged and screaming about authoritarian inclinations of a dictator-to-be/dictator.  When this happens to someone else, your point of view suddenly changes 180 degrees and you suddenly defend the other side..

In the old days, when people regularly used e-mail rather than webmails it was the e-mail program that downloaded data from the POP3/IMAP server and deleted it later (POP3 DELE [mail-index] command https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1939.html ). The data disappeared from the server! And now you have the government stepping in and telling the IT company hosting the mailboxes and forcing them pretend to delete the emails while internally storing them (just in case gov step in and want them in any time in the future)..A user can't access his/her messages after deleting them, but the government has access to them. Crazy. I can see that you like such pathologies when they are done by those you consider “good” and if it was done by Trump and his team you would immediately be outraged..

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

On the contrary, @TheVat and I have been addressing the OP, which was asking about points of law concerning interception of correspondence by the state. 

We have several things here:

1) Intercepting the future correspondence of anyone the government wants to.

2) Reading past correspondence already carried out (which may be impossible to do if the IT system was not designed for it and didn't do it in advance).

3) Introduction of backdoors to read future messages. Destroying your own Internet security of your server at the behest of some government..

This is simply hacking on behalf of the government of its own clients..

Durov didn't want to do it on behalf of the Kremlin, so they stole his company and fired him from the company and he had to flee the country.

And now he didn't want to do it at the behest of Western governments and they locked him up in prison.

 

He was/is competition for Musk, Zuckerberg, Brin and Page. He didn't want to comply and spy on his clients at the behest and order of the government, so they shut him down.

 

..interesting that you wonder why all the billionaires stood behind POTUS at the inauguration and kissed his ass..

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Sensei

[Linkey]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wasn't Durov also allowing the sexual exploitation of children through Telegram?  And it was used to coordinate anti immigrant violence by extremist groups in the UK, as I recall

I am not sure that this is true. Did you read these news from social networks?

Durov is a very good person, and he has a reputation of a Russian "internet-warrior", because he tried to protect anti-Putin bloggers in Vkontakte and had to leave Russia because of this. In 2019, the Telegram was blocked in Russia, but Durov was able to make Telegram "self-VPN" and the Russian authorities were unsuccessfull.

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

I cited some specific uncommon instances,

But you claimed that it wasn’t particularly uncommon. And gave no details about the one I asked about.

3 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

but I don't feel particularly obliged to accommodate your rudeness.

So you don’t have anything to support the claim. Got it.

 

3 hours ago, bearcat22 said:

If you doubt any of my statements, I could not care less. Feel free to refute, if you can. 

You made a claim. You own the burden of proof.

[MigL]

I would like to point out to @Sensei that if the authorities suspect you of wrongdoing such that they want to read your end-to-end encrypted correspondence, then they have justification to obtain a warrant to seize your phone.
Once they have that, they can gain access to your encrypted data.

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

am not sure that this is true. Did you read these news from social networks?

Nope.  Covered in major news outlets all over the world.

https://wapo.st/4ijqUhN

But the messaging service’s anything-goes approach to online content has also made it one of the internet’s largest havens for child predators, experts say. French prosecutors charged Durov on Wednesday with complicity in the distribution of child sex abuse images and other wrongdoing on Telegram, following the billionaire’s dramatic arrest last week at a Paris airport....

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-child-safety-rcna168266

Before Telegram’s CEO was arrested in France, the app had gained a reputation for ignoring advocacy groups fighting child exploitation.

Three of those groups, the U.S.-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the U.K.-based Internet Watch Foundation, all told NBC News that their outreach to Telegram about child sexual abuse material, often shorthanded as CSAM, on the platform has largely been ignored. (.....)

John Shehan, senior vice president of NCMEC’s Exploited Children Division & International Engagement, said he was encouraged by France’s decision to arrest Durov because Telegram has been such a haven for CSAM.

“Telegram is truly in a league of their own as far as their lack of content moderation or even interest in preventing child sexual exploitation activity on their platform,” he said

“It is encouraging to see the French government, French police, taking some action to potentially rectify this type of activity,” Shehan said.

 

(etc.) (this is easily researched, matters of public record)

[Sensei]

25 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Nope.  Covered in major news outlets all over the world.

..and do you believe (buy) such lies.. ?

Show me public posts, threads, groups, etc. about child pornography on Telegram. Provide the URL to such content on Telegram.

The mailman's job is not to check every package before it is delivered to make sure it does not contain illegal materials..

If two child rapists make two accounts on SFN, and later send PM ("private messages") between each other, should Dave, Swansont, Phi For All be arrested.. ?

You seem to say 'yes' to such approach..

 

Edited 18 minutes ago by Sensei