This article is reprinted with permission from Discourse.
On August 24, as Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, was exiting his private jet in Paris, he was arrested by French police. With close to a billion users, Telegram is one of the world’s most popular text messaging apps, an ecosystem that includes news and expert channels, photo and video sharing, various online communities, political dissidents, and protesters.
But because the app offers encrypted communication that is impossible to crack, Telegram also attracts criminals and terrorists. And that appears to be why Durov is in trouble. Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau has alleged that Durov was complicit “in managing an online platform to enable illegal transactions,” and that in multiple criminal cases, Telegram had shown “near-total absence” of a response to authorities’ requests for cooperation.
Beyond the immediate allegations, the case signifies something larger: the completion of institutions’ adaptation to digital challenges. Institutional control over the public sphere and people’s lives was shattered by the initial spread of the internet; the Durov arrest signals that the state is tightening its grip.
The state wants to know what criminals and terrorists are doing, but also what protesters and regular folks are up to. And Telegram can be used by criminals, terrorists, protesters, and regular folks—as can any technology. Is it possible to separate one type of user from another? The French government says yes. Durov says no. It is either privacy for everyone or for no one.
Born and raised in Russia, Durov is known as a self-professed libertarian who fights for privacy rights. He fled his home country in 2014 when the Kremlin’s secret services demanded he hand over data on the organizers of the Ukrainian Euromaidan protests from his previous social network, VKontakte (VK). He refused.
A year before he fled Russia, Durov founded Telegram with his brother Nikolai. For years, Telegram has faced increasing scrutiny from various governments demanding tighter moderation and information sharing. The company insists that it “abides by EU laws” and that “its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving.” In previous cases, when digital regulators are confronted with tech behavior they haven’t liked, they have responded by imposing economic and administrative penalties, such as restrictions and fines. Arresting Telegram’s CEO for “lack of moderation” or “failure to address misuse of the platform” seems like an overreach. The list of accusations is long, but how much of this justifies a criminal warrant against Durov personally is unclear. A case of this kind has never been brought before.
Nevertheless, a part of the public seems to be pleased with the fact that a tech billionaire has been arrested for “lack of moderation” on social media. “Arresting Telegram’s Pavel Durov could be a smart move. Tech bosses care more about themselves than you. He has been praised for refusing to share data with the Kremlin. But if targeting CEOs worries Musk, Zuckerberg et al., so be it,” wrote Chris Stokel-Walker in The Guardian.
There are likely no reasons for Zuckerberg or Musk to panic yet, although their security teams will certainly double-check the legal risks in the countries they travel to (especially since Musk is not always overly charitable to European bureaucrats). But how did it come to pass that these billionaires—leaders of digital progress and providers of digital infrastructure for democracy—are now at the center of a debate about possible or even desirable legal retaliation?
our Comments
Use common sense here: disagree, debate, but don't be a .