People may have underestimated the significance of the arrest of Telegram founder Durov in France. Previously, social platforms might face government fines for moderation issues, but personal charges were rare, and the detention of executives was even more uncommon.
The owner of platform X, Musk, sees Durov's experience as the first arrest of a global communication platform CEO. The sensitive have already smelled that global regulatory bodies and governments have already sounded the drums of war on social media and freedom of speech.
After Durov's arrest, this Tuesday, Malaysian Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil warned tech giants such as Google, Meta, and X that they must comply with local laws to continue operating in Malaysia. The country plans to introduce a licensing system for social media companies, which has sparked collective opposition from tech giants.
Coincidentally, the South Korean government called Telegram and other social media to cooperate with the authorities on Wednesday to delete and block counterfeit and illegal content. The Korea Communications Standards Commission claimed that regulatory personnel monitoring cybercrime would double from the current 70.
At the same time, tech company executives, including Musk and Meta CEO Zuckerberg, are calling for freedom of speech and demanding that governments respect platform ecology.
Charges Against Durov
France has brought more than a dozen charges against Durov, including owning and distributing child sexual abuse material, drug trafficking, organized fraud, and disseminating hacking tools through Telegram. But the premise is that Durov is an active participant in these crimes or at least a person who knows and does not report them.
Similar to Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, the EU legally affirms that Telegram and other service providers have immunity from liability for illegal content on their platforms, as long as they are unaware of these illegal contents and take action promptly after discovery.
An important charge for Durov's arrest in France is that Telegram refused to respond when the authorities requested an investigation of illegal activities on the platform, thus constituting a crime. The French prosecutor also accused Durov of knowingly not acting on criminal activities on the platform and treating it as a key feature rather than a vulnerability.
Setting aside complex charges, the core reason for the arrest recognized by the industry is actually that Telegram refused to provide the French government with the information or documents needed to intercept content.
Some people pointed out that this means France cannot break Telegram's encryption program to read information. French legal expert Florence G'sell believes that this means Telegram refuses to disclose user information required in the process of a criminal investigation.
French law stipulates that platforms are allowed to use encryption technology freely, but their importers, exporters, and suppliers should first notify the French Network Security Bureau and keep their transactions with the authorities confidential. Of course, many people see this as an opportunity for the government to set up a back door to facilitate the government's reading of protected user information on the platform.
But it is quite embarrassing that Telegram firmly rejected the French government's idea of opening a back door. However, Telegram is not the only one to refuse the government's means, and France is not the only government that Telegram has refused. Social platforms and governments have been in a delicate stalemate for a long time, and Durov's arrest has obviously broken the balance.
Is Telegram Really Secure?
Telegram is hailed by some as the world's most secure and anonymous chat platform. Its encryption mode is based on 256-bit symmetric AES encryption, RSA 2048 encryption, and the Diffie-Hellman secure key exchange protocol, which the industry calls the beauty of mathematics and engineering.
In addition, Durov's hard-line stance against the Russian government's pressure, preferring to leave rather than bring Telegram under the supervision of the Russian government, has been widely circulated, and Telegram is quite popular in Europe and America.
In the United States alone, Telegram has nearly 11 million active users per month, mostly young people; in the EU, its user base exceeds 40 million, just slightly less than the 45 million users stipulated by the European Commission for large platforms.
According to Telegram itself, its global user base has reached 900 million, and it is an important communication tool in conflicts that have attracted much attention, such as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both of which are using the app.
Spanish cybersecurity expert Rafael López pointed out that the reason why Telegram is popular is that its competitors like WhatsApp, the US National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies have back doors that can enter the background, but Telegram does not.
From this perspective, Telegram is indeed a trustworthy platform for users, but in the eyes of experts, everything is another angle.
Cryptography expert Matthew Green explained that Telegram is different from other messaging apps; it does have illegal encryption protection, but most of the time it is just a decoration.
Mainstream messaging apps will protect the content of users' messages by default with end-to-end encryption, which allows the content of each message to be known only by the two parties in the communication and will not be exposed to the service operator. WhatsApp, Signal, and other messaging apps automatically enable end-to-end encryption at the beginning of the conversation, but Telegram requires users to set it up in advance.
To enable end-to-end encryption on Telegram, you first need to find its hidden settings; even after a successful setup, it does not mean complete success, because Telegram's end-to-end encryption is only applicable to one-on-one chats where both parties are online.
That is to say, the vast majority of Telegram conversations, including one-on-one or group chats, can essentially be seen and recorded by Telegram's servers. Therefore, Green has always been frantic about Telegram's promotion of absolute security.
Dilemmas
Another unique aspect of the Telegram case is that it not only sees itself as a platform for sending and receiving messages but also as an integrated social media hub for large-scale content distribution. If it is a public group message, such as posting on X and being seen by tens of thousands of people, then end-to-end encryption is indeed an unnecessary procedure to some extent.
Green also admitted that Telegram may indeed be a very secure application because many users do not need to use the encryption function.
But this business across end-to-end encrypted chats and social platforms also makes Telegram very passive, as it is caught up in the two sensitive topics of content moderation of social platforms and the backdoors of end-to-end encryption services.
If it focuses on end-to-end services, it can naturally tell regulators that due to privacy terms, it cannot provide backdoors for the authorities, just like Amazon Zoopla and other online platforms. However, due to the mixed information on its social platform, this makes its refusal to regulate becomes a handle for indulging in criminal activities.
Digital rights organization Access Now lawyer Natalia Krapiva summarized this, affirming Telegram's efforts to prevent dictatorships from trying to stop and force the platform to provide encryption keys, but also being vigilant about Telegram's lack of human rights policy, reliable communication channels, and remedies for users.
However, Telegram is also trying to establish contact with regulators. In February this year, EU Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier revealed that Telegram expressed respect for the EU government, and would listen to its suggestions on platform deletion of illegal content, cooperation with regulators, and platform practices when the authorities issue deletion orders.
Interestingly, as a regulatory body for Telegram in the EU based in Belgium, the telecommunications regulatory authority was actually confused after Durov's sudden arrest in France, saying it was unaware, did not participate in France's criminal investigation, nor was it informed of how Telegram failed to delete illegal content and how to be convicted, all of which have nothing to do with the EU.
Russian State Duma deputy Maria Butina mocked that Musk, who wants freedom of speech, is free, and Zuckerberg, who also wants freedom of speech, is free, but Durov is in prison. Why? Because he is Russian.
From this perspective, France's maintaining the safety of large social platforms and the arrest activities carried out may not be sufficient, because Telegram's insecurity can be said to be a common problem in the entire industry.
Political Calculations
The week Durov was arrested, both Russia and Ukraine began to launch large-scale air strikes on each other's territories, once again shattering the hope for peace talks between the two countries.
Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Telegram has always been an internal communication tool for the Russian military and a key platform for the Russian government to make public statements. It also has a large number of users in Ukraine, but its military internal communication mainly relies on Signal.
What is quite alarming to Russia is that if Durov can't withstand the pressure and hands over the Telegram key to France, it is equivalent to the entire Russian information being exposed to NATO.
The Russian security agency's channel Baza on Telegram reported that Russian officials from the Ministry of Defense, well-known businessmen, and several security agencies have been quickly instructed to delete work-related information from the application.
Russian parliamentarian Butina bluntly said that the West arrested Durov to control the Telegram social platform, and Durov is a victim of Western political persecution.
The treatment of Telegram may also represent a new strategy of Western governments for public opinion platforms, especially social platforms owned by non-Western entities and their leaders, who may face new legal challenges.
Recalling the previous action by the United States to ban TikTok, its core conflict with Telegram is somewhat consistent, that is, the West demands to control the platform's information distribution rules and ownership rights. However, the former is under the pretext of worrying about the leakage of American data, while the latter is accused of unregulated criminal activities.
These cases involving politics seem to be unable to reflect the plight of the entire industry, but the situation of X in Brazil may be able to prove that global governments have started to reconsider the status of social media.
At least for the industry, this witch hunt is irrelevant to who the target is. Whether it was when TikTok was banned or when Durov was arrested, Musk insisted that this was an infringement on freedom of speech, which may also represent his thoughts on the future fate of the entire industry.
Undoubtedly, American technology companies and non-Western social platforms are all feeling the chill of regulation. The game between the government and social media has just begun.