Telegram CEO Arrested in France Over Content Moderation Issues

[Nuno Lopes]

Doing more than nothing is a start

What does nothing mean? Nothing according to what? Do telcos moderate the contents of SMS messages and phone calls?

Can you explain how can one moderate a conversation without participating or eavesdropping/tapping on it? Can you provide an example of moderation without knowing its content?

I think you may be playing with words. It leads to nothing useful.

Has some other poster wrote. Why aren't telecom CEOs arrested considering that many criminals make phone calls. In such a context in all EU countries I know, to record a conversation needs to be authorized by the participants, otherwise it's an illegal practices. Also "tapping" a conversation , it's possible, yet can only be done through judicial order in the context of a case being built and accessed by delegates. Why not start from there when it comes setting legal policies for messaging services.

Take GDPR as an example.

Look, maybe all this was in place and Telegram failed to comply with the law. Or it maybe simply the case that some have not done their job and just needed show some action and have someone to blame. We all have seen cases of either situations.

PS: I believe that through strict judicial order and strict procedures, companies should provide the police with the means to eavesdrop communications on their platforms of make a case. This has been always the case, why change that? Just bite the bullet and say it, instead of passing the buck to these services with vague words.

 

[avz]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this post? How do you even begin to tie Hitler to the topic at hand?

The French were the most staunch and ferocious defenders of Reichstag and the bunker where Hitler pulled at his end.

 

[laptech]

For too long CEO's of social media and messaging platforms have behaved irresponsibly when it comes to activity on their platforms. For years they have hidden behind the excuse of 'we are not responsible for what our users do'. That excuse no longer works, especially in the EU where they have amended existing laws to now include the online world and now they are using those laws to target irresponsible tech CEO's. Child pornography, terrorist activity, selling of illegal drugs and weapons, sale and transfer of stolen data and lots lots more of law breaking things.

For too long CEO's of ANY company have hidden behind excuses of 'we do not know everything that goes on with my company'. That no longer works anymore in the EU where they changed laws where CEO's can now be held liable for things people do.

I think it was about 7-8 years ago when the EU initially wrote letters to all tech CEO's that operate in the EU that they are to get their house in order to prevent illegal activity taking place on their platforms. The EU was ignored. Then slowly over the years the EU started to update existing laws to accommodate for the online world, things that were already illegal in the real world were now becoming illegal in the online world. About 4-5 years ago the EU sent out another letter to all the tech CEO's that operate in the EU that again they must get their house in order to prevent illegal activity from taking place on their platforms and if they do not then they will be fined. Again as time went on more EU laws got amended to include the online world then approx. 2 years ago the EU went heavy on the tech CEO's and told them that they are to stop ALL illegal activity on their platforms or there will be serve repercussions. Suddenly we start seeing Youtube, Whatsapp, instagram, tiktok to name a few start to change their T&C's relating to moderation on their platform and the repercussion if illegal activity is found on their platform. Amazon had to clamp down on fraudulent sellers, Ebay had to clamp down as well. The EU have been lenient towards those who are showing that they are trying to get their house in order. Those that don't face the consequences.

So, for the uneducated, this is not something the EU has just done over the past 2-3 years, this is something the EU put in place nearly 10 years ago, giving tech CEO's the chance to get their house in order..10 years!!!!. And again for the uneducated, it has nothing to do about free speech or an attach on free speech. What the EU is doing is clamping down on illegal activity that is rampant throughout many online tech companies.

So, if people think that wanting to stop child pornography, human trafficking and terrorist activities is an attack on free speech then you have got some serious mental problems.

 

[mxrider88]

If the government can’t control the narrative then let’s arrest the CEO.

It reminds me of some historical period in Germany I read on school books..
It also sounds like the same practices used in countries we are supposed to hate without asking ourselves any question..

 

[Mitochris]

Providers like Piratebay or other sharing platforms were shut down, and arrests were made for providing a platform for illegal sharing. Is this not very much the same, that the providers have to be made more accountable for the content that is shared on their platforms?

 

[HylianKnight]

What does nothing mean? Nothing according to what? Do telcos moderate the contents of SMS messages and phone calls?

Can you explain how can one moderate a conversation without participating or eavesdropping/tapping on it? Can you provide an example of moderation without knowing its content?

I think you may be playing with words. It leads to nothing useful.

Has some other poster wrote. Why aren't telecom CEOs arrested considering that many criminals make phone calls. In such a context in all EU countries I know, to record a conversation needs to be authorized by the participants, otherwise it's an illegal practices. Also "tapping" a conversation , it's possible, yet can only be done through judicial order in the context of a case being built and accessed by delegates. Why not start from there when it comes setting legal policies for messaging services.

Take GDPR as an example.

Look, maybe all this was in place and Telegram failed to comply with the law. Or it maybe simply the case that some have not done their job and just needed show some action and have someone to blame. We all have seen cases of either situations.

PS: I believe that through strict judicial order and strict procedures, companies should provide the police with the means to eavesdrop communications on their platforms of make a case. This has been always the case, why change that? Just bite the bullet and say it, instead of passing the buck to these services with vague words.

To be fair, I don’t use telegram and have no idea how it’s set up. In the US, they would argue if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Was this a “public” room or private chats?

 

[aloysiusfreeman]

If the government can’t control the narrative then let’s arrest the CEO.

It reminds me of some historical period in Germany I read on school books..
It also sounds like the same practices used in countries we are supposed to hate without asking ourselves any question..

What's the narrative right now that the government can't control?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

To be fair, I don’t use telegram and have no idea how it’s set up. In the US, they would argue if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Was this a “public” room or private chats?

Yeah. We just don't know. If it was "public" for sure the police could track its content, maybe issue a judicial order to take down the room or something. That ability at least is to be expected from the provider of such service. Private chat? I think more would need to be in place in terms of regulations so companies can comply with the word "sufficient".

But hey, I'm taking it just has it is written in MacRumors. I'm sure will know more soon.

 

[webkit]

Even if they plan a crime, that should not be the problem of the platform. Imagine that happened offline. Criminals meet in a hotel and plan a crime there. It is not the job of the hotel to listen while they are talking.

Hotels and digital platforms are not regulated the same in this situation. In the EU, digital platforms can have specific obligations under DSA law regarding content moderation, user safety obligations, transparency reporting, etc. Hotels do not. While laws can vary from place to place, hotel "monitoring" (outside of public security cameras) is usually only done by or at the request of law enforcement when illegal activity may be suspected.

 

[hans1972]

I guess they’ll be arresting the all the top tech CEOs for the same thing lol?

they might if they're grossly violating DSA, the older brother of DMA.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

The French press release makes some interesting comments. Image lifted from the Verge.

 

[hans1972]

He has a responsibility to moderate content as a CEO, but since when is running a company poorly a crime?

Most of the time in fact since it often involves breaking some laws especially with regards to account and reporting. Usually they aren't prosecuted.

 

[hans1972]

We are slowly but surely driving into authoritarian territory while bitching about Putin or China. Worked out great the first time around!

The DSA puts an enormous amount of responsibility on social media platforms. It's the slight older brother of the DMA.

 

[MacHeritage]

His mistake was leaving the country, IMO. That is why Gab's CEO hasn't "traveled outside the United States in six years on advice of counsel for this reason." If foreign governments want you or fine you, stay where you are safe and have some rights.

This whole thing is very troubling for freedom of speech. There is a reason they are targeting him now.

 

[hans1972]

This is the slippery slope in plain view. What is “content moderation” and who decides what content to moderate? Define the word moderate, sort of like former POTUS Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings when he answered a question with, “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”

Yes, the things this Durov is accused of failing to moderate, on the surface, seem despicable. What comes next from the shadowy regulators charged with protecting us from ourselves?

What if the so-called free world politicians decide criticizing the government needs to be “moderated”. It’s already illegal to refuse to use the self defined pronouns of anther person. Is that not compelled speech?

In my opinion the free world is heading in the direction of controlled and compelled speech. Wasn't there a novel about this very thing?

The DSA defines and decides what is content moderation, what's needed to moderate and who is responsible.
It applies only to large online plattforms.
If someone posts an image of a Nazi flag in Germany on a large online platform covered by the DMA, the platform has 24h to remove it even if they aren't notified about it.

"EU gives Meta 24 hours to respond to pro-Hamas content. Tech platforms could face hefty fines for failing to remove illegal content due to the EU’s new Digital Services Act."

EU gives Meta 24 hours to respond to pro-Hamas content

New EU regulations put in place tough online speech rules.

www.theverge.com

 

[hans1972]

Furthermore, it implies that companies should tap in real time all the time private conversations. Is my believe that telegram does strong E2E encryption and are deleted after a short after, much like a phone call, making next to impossible for a non participant to unlock it.

It's not, almost nothing on Telegram is end-to-end encrypted. Also Telegram isn't really a traditional messaging service. It's more like a combination of 1) Facebook Groups and 2) Facebook Messenger with group chats and individual chats.

In Sweden, gangs puts up hitman contracts on public groups on Telegram and boys as young as 15 has been known to answer the call and doing the job.

 

[hans1972]

He was not asked to moderate content, he was asked to censor content the government did not like. Big difference.

Here is what he's being investigated for:

Complicity - web-mastering an online platform in order to enable an illegal transaction in organized group,

Refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law,

Complicity - possessing pornographic images of minors,

Complicity - distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in organized group,

Complicity - acquiring, transporting, possessing, offering or selling narcotic substances,

Complicity - offering, selling or making available, without legitimate reason, equipment, tools, programs or data designed for or adapted to get access to and to damage the operation of an automated data processing system,

Complicity - organized fraud,

Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or an offense punishable by 5 or more years of imprisonment,

 

[hans1972]

Playing whack-a-mole while also trying to shoot the moles seems counterproductive, but maybe I'm seeing the situation the wrong way.

Telegram is the distribution method for a lot of criminal activity including murder-for-hire, child pornography, money-laundering, transportation and sale of narcotics, organised fraud, hacking tools etc.

It's much better to take the distribution method instead of going after what might be millions of people committing crimes.

 

[hans1972]

What complete ignorance.... It genuinely is sad to read how much folks want the government to dictate their lives. We have laws about prostitution and drug dealing on the streets, and yet it happens. Weird. So are you going to arrest the police officers or city/state leaders for not preventing this crime? I mean...'they have a responsibility'. Should law enforcement be setting up cameras inside our homes to monitor and make sure nothing illegal is happening? Where would YOU like to draw the line?

I think everyone can agree that terrorism is bad. That doesn't mean folks (at least in the USA) should have to give up their freedoms. It's not only about what you gain, it's also about what you are giving up. I don't think a company's CEO gets to make the call about what I can say.

1) In most of Europa, a company has a duty to try to moderate content which is illegal. It also has a duty to assist law enforcement agencies and other competent agencies.

2) The DSA gives large online platforms a strict duty to proactively moderate content, often with only 24h do remove illegal content

3) In Europe, it's basically the National Assemblies/parliaments which restricts your speech, especially on large online platforms.


Here is some of the things under investigation:
Complicity - web-mastering an online platform in order to enable an illegal transaction in organized group,

Refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law,

Complicity - possessing pornographic images of minors,

Complicity - distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in organized group,

Complicity - acquiring, transporting, possessing, offering or selling narcotic substances,

Complicity - offering, selling or making available, without legitimate reason, equipment, tools, programs or data designed for or adapted to get access to and to damage the operation of an automated data processing system,

Complicity - organized fraud,

Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or an offense punishable by 5 or more years of imprisonment,

 

[hans1972]

IF the issue really is distributing child pornography then it's a hard one. As far as free speech goes .... there are no limits. But criminality is a different issue.

it's all of this:

Complicity - web-mastering an online platform in order to enable an illegal transaction in organized group,

Refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law,

Complicity - possessing pornographic images of minors,

Complicity - distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in organized group,

Complicity - acquiring, transporting, possessing, offering or selling narcotic substances,

Complicity - offering, selling or making available, without legitimate reason, equipment, tools, programs or data designed for or adapted to get access to and to damage the operation of an automated data processing system,

Complicity - organized fraud,

Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or an offense punishable by 5 or more years of imprisonment,

 

[hans1972]

How is this different from the way Signal operates? And…I am surprised to see people here happy that the Government will have complete control over privacy

Telegram isnt' like Signal. Telegram is more like 1) Facebooks groups and 2) Public and private chats in one large online platform.

Almost nothing is encrypted on Telegram, including private chats.

 

[hans1972]

Based on those accusations, every CEO of every social media platform can be arrested at any time. This is madness. It looks like a bunch of garbage and bogus charges.

It's very serious allegations like:
Complicity - web-mastering an online platform in order to enable an illegal transaction in organized group,

Refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law,

Complicity - possessing pornographic images of minors,

Complicity - distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in organized group,

Complicity - acquiring, transporting, possessing, offering or selling narcotic substances,

Complicity - offering, selling or making available, without legitimate reason, equipment, tools, programs or data designed for or adapted to get access to and to damage the operation of an automated data processing system,

Complicity - organized fraud,

Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or an offense punishable by 5 or more years of imprisonment,

 

[hans1972]

It's always fine unless you're the person having your speech limited.

Once again, who determines what is acceptable speech and what is not?

Is book burning next?

In Europe, it's parliaments/National Assemblies together with courts.
Exception of course being Russia and Belarus, where I guess the leader decides.

 

[hans1972]

Based on those accusations, every CEO of every social media platform can be arrested at any time. This is madness. It looks like a bunch of garbage and bogus charges.

Where have you been in the last 10 years? You should look up the Digital Service Act.

 

[hans1972]

Should we just not have social media?

The EU (and other countries) has implemented some very heavy handed laws to regulate and force social media platforms to moderate and censor.

The Digital Service Act is to social media companies like the DMA is to Apple. The DSA makes the social media company accountable for all content on their platforms.

The EU Commission gave Facebook only 24h to remove pro-Hamas posts.

EU gives Meta 24 hours to respond to pro-Hamas content

New EU regulations put in place tough online speech rules.

www.theverge.com