Pavel Durov hat ein erstes längeres Statement auf Telegram veröffentlicht, durch die Blume kritisiert er, dass er für die Inhalte der Nutzer persönlich festgenommen wurde.
Niemand würde mehr innovative Tools entwickeln, wenn die Entwickler persönlich für jeden Missbrauch der Tools haften müssten.
Weiters kritisiert Durov, dass wenn eine Regierung mit einem Internet Service unzufrieden ist, warum sie sich dann nicht auf dem Rechtsweg zuerst an die Firma gewandt haben.
Ich würde sogar weiter gehen. Die Verhaftung des Telegram CEO erinnert mich eher an Mafia-Methoden, die die EU gerne in anderen autokratischen Staaten kritisiert. Das war für mich wie eine Entführung in einem schlechten Spionage-Film.
Abschließend verspricht Durov sich mehr um die Filterung von illegalen Inhalten zu kümmern und erklärt das sogar zu seinem persönlichen Ziel.
Die MSM berichten sogar, dass Telegram jetzt damit angefangen habe, private Chats zu moderieren.
Was sagt ihr dazu? Sollen private Chats privat bleiben, oder sollen sogar in privaten Chats gemäß den Wünschen der jeweiligen Regierung unerwünschte Inhalte zensuriert werden?
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov published first statement after his arrest in France
https://x.com/durov/status/1831826862936633657
Du Rove's Channel
✔
❤️ Thanks everyone for your support and love!
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:
- 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”.
- 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.
- 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 🙏
t.me/durov
/342
10.5Mviews
Paul Du Rove
,
Sep 5 at 22:45
Telegram to Begin Moderating Private Chats
https://greekreporter.com/2024/09/09/telegram-moderation-private-chats/
Telegram quietly updates FAQ, removing: "All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them."
https://x.com/tier10k/status/1831864963704746356
English
Pavel Durov has published his first long statement on Telegram, criticizing the fact that he was personally arrested for the users' content.
No one would develop innovative tools any more if the developers of the tools had to be personally liable for every misuse of their product.
Durov also criticizes the fact that if a government is dissatisfied with an Internet service, why didn't they take legal action against the company first?
I would go even further. The arrest of the Telegram CEO reminds me more of the mafia methods that the EU likes to criticize in other autocratic states. For me, it was like the CEO being kidnapped in a bad spy movie.
Finally, Durov promises to do more to filter illegal content and even declares this to be his personal goal.
The MSM even report that Telegram has now started moderating private chats.
What do you think? Should private chats remain private, or should unwanted content even be censored in private chats according to the wishes of the respective government?