Snowden: The arrest of Durov is an assault on the basic human rights(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Snowden: The arrest of Durov is an assault on the basic human rights
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1827695836832334169
274 comments
Some of these warrants and subpoenas are senseless and come from deliberate political prosecution though. This seems to be the case in France, not a good look at all, especially with these accusations.
But Signal did get it right too, this is basically malicious compliance. But making a state make a fuss is another.
But Signal did get it right too, this is basically malicious compliance. But making a state make a fuss is another.
Among one of the many charges... "Complicity - Detention of the image of a minor of a child-pornographic nature."
Him being charged is as simple and standard as an administrator being shut down and it's owner charged for propagating illegal content. As standard as a Tor drug site being shutdown and it's owner charged. Worse, Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it. For this, he is immoral and in my opinion, a disgusting human being.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
https://www.threads.net/@cyndiborowski/post/C_JSEuByAVQ?xmt=...
Him being charged is as simple and standard as an administrator being shut down and it's owner charged for propagating illegal content. As standard as a Tor drug site being shutdown and it's owner charged. Worse, Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it. For this, he is immoral and in my opinion, a disgusting human being.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
https://www.threads.net/@cyndiborowski/post/C_JSEuByAVQ?xmt=...
> Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it
Source?
Source?
Read the charging document.
Complicity - Administration of an online platform to allow an illegal transaction in an organised band,
- Refusal to communicate, at the request of the authorised authorities, the information or documents necessary for the realisation and exploitation of interceptions authorised by law,
- Complicity - Detention of the image of a minor of a child-pornographic nature,
- Complicity - Dissemination, offer or making available in an organised tape of images of a minor of a pornographic nature,
- Complicity - Acquisition, transport, holding, offer or disposal of narcotic products,
- Complicity - Offer, assignment or making available without legitimate reason of equipment, an instrument, a program or data designed or adapted for the attack and access to the operation of an automated data processing system,
- Complicity - Organised gang scam,
- Association of criminals with a view to committing a crime or offence punishable by 5 years of imprisonment at least,
- Money laundering of crimes or offences in organised gangs,
- Provision of cryptology services to ensure confidentiality functions without a declaration of conformity,
- Provision of a cryptological means not exclusively ensuring authentication or integrity control functions without prior declaration,
- Import of a cryptology means that does not exclusively perform authentication or integrity control functions without prior declaration.
Complicity - Administration of an online platform to allow an illegal transaction in an organised band,
- Refusal to communicate, at the request of the authorised authorities, the information or documents necessary for the realisation and exploitation of interceptions authorised by law,
- Complicity - Detention of the image of a minor of a child-pornographic nature,
- Complicity - Dissemination, offer or making available in an organised tape of images of a minor of a pornographic nature,
- Complicity - Acquisition, transport, holding, offer or disposal of narcotic products,
- Complicity - Offer, assignment or making available without legitimate reason of equipment, an instrument, a program or data designed or adapted for the attack and access to the operation of an automated data processing system,
- Complicity - Organised gang scam,
- Association of criminals with a view to committing a crime or offence punishable by 5 years of imprisonment at least,
- Money laundering of crimes or offences in organised gangs,
- Provision of cryptology services to ensure confidentiality functions without a declaration of conformity,
- Provision of a cryptological means not exclusively ensuring authentication or integrity control functions without prior declaration,
- Import of a cryptology means that does not exclusively perform authentication or integrity control functions without prior declaration.
Those are allegations. Durov being directly involved with CSAM in any way is not something I've seen substantiated.
Involved with CSAM means having a platform that openly has CSAM and not doing anything about it despite many warnings and requests in years. Do you disagree that is illegal? See my examples of others being charged...
> Involved with CSAM means having a platform that openly has CSAM and not doing anything about it despite many warnings and requests in years
You'd have to show that he knew about specific instances and declined to intervene.
I'm not saying that's unlikely. But I haven't seen it shown, and I suspect part of what the French police are trying to get is that evidence of wilful inaction versus gross negligence.
You'd have to show that he knew about specific instances and declined to intervene.
I'm not saying that's unlikely. But I haven't seen it shown, and I suspect part of what the French police are trying to get is that evidence of wilful inaction versus gross negligence.
So in your view it's perfectly ok to run an internet service where you don't check for CSAM? You're entitled to that view I suppose but it's a minority view and allowing CSAM on your platform is illegal in most places (including the US where there's a carve out for that sort of stuff in the law that protects Google, Facebook et al) and in all of those jurisdictions the public is not going to be able to see the CSAM or be able to examine the substance of the allegations either before or during trial.
Every social network or file sharing site that I've been aware of has a Trust and Safety department for just this reason even X. The executives don't want to go to jail.
Every social network or file sharing site that I've been aware of has a Trust and Safety department for just this reason even X. The executives don't want to go to jail.
> So in your view it's perfectly ok to run an internet service where you don't check for CSAM?
Well, that's quite the assumption. The commenter you've replied to said nothing like this. And yet this is your first conclusion?? Is this how you operate in real life, at your job?
Telegram does moderate for CSAM. The claim that it does not is completely unsubstantiated. You can find CSAM across Meta's products. Does that mean they do not check for CSAM? No.
Well, that's quite the assumption. The commenter you've replied to said nothing like this. And yet this is your first conclusion?? Is this how you operate in real life, at your job?
Telegram does moderate for CSAM. The claim that it does not is completely unsubstantiated. You can find CSAM across Meta's products. Does that mean they do not check for CSAM? No.
They ignore taking action when confronted with it. That's why Durov is a disgusting human being.
"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."
"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."
They're just another commenter making a comment with unqualified confidence.
Those are the charges and the core argument. Do you disagree?
"Telegram is a key component of the ecosystem of individuals trading and selling child sexual abuse materials, and is the only major platform to implicitly allow the exchange of CSAM on private channels, many of which are not end-to-end encrypted.” Stamos is now chief information security officer at cybersecurity company SentinelOne.
A June report from the Stanford Internet Observatory found that Telegram was the only major platform not to forbid illegal material in private channels and chats. “Telegram has also been observed by SIO as failing to perform even basic content enforcement on public channels, with instances of known CSAM being detected and reported by our ingest systems,” the report said.
Jean-Michel Bernigaud, secretary general of Ofmin, a French police agency focused on preventing violence against minors, said in a LinkedIn post Monday that Durov’s arrest was related to the app’s inability to deal with offensive content against minors. “At the heart of the case is the absence of moderation and cooperation on the part of the platform,” Bernigaud said, “especially in the fight against child sex crimes.”
"Telegram is a key component of the ecosystem of individuals trading and selling child sexual abuse materials, and is the only major platform to implicitly allow the exchange of CSAM on private channels, many of which are not end-to-end encrypted.” Stamos is now chief information security officer at cybersecurity company SentinelOne.
A June report from the Stanford Internet Observatory found that Telegram was the only major platform not to forbid illegal material in private channels and chats. “Telegram has also been observed by SIO as failing to perform even basic content enforcement on public channels, with instances of known CSAM being detected and reported by our ingest systems,” the report said.
Jean-Michel Bernigaud, secretary general of Ofmin, a French police agency focused on preventing violence against minors, said in a LinkedIn post Monday that Durov’s arrest was related to the app’s inability to deal with offensive content against minors. “At the heart of the case is the absence of moderation and cooperation on the part of the platform,” Bernigaud said, “especially in the fight against child sex crimes.”
Yes, of course I disagree. This is one claim among many. Specifically, this appalling characterization and accusation you made:
> Worse, Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it. For this, he is immoral and in my opinion, a disgusting human being.
You have no idea who Durov is. You have a handful of claims by French authorities without evidence and you immediately jump to loathing this person and reviling them as a "disgusting human being"? Shame on you.
> Worse, Durov was involved with CSAM material and did nothing about it. For this, he is immoral and in my opinion, a disgusting human being.
You have no idea who Durov is. You have a handful of claims by French authorities without evidence and you immediately jump to loathing this person and reviling them as a "disgusting human being"? Shame on you.
I'm glad we agree that if the claims are true, he would be considered an appalling and awful figure. We'll see what the court decides, that's how justice works.
I trust the French government and several global monitoring CSAM agencies more than I trust a random Twitter or HN user.
I trust the French government and several global monitoring CSAM agencies more than I trust a random Twitter or HN user.
You keep good company: the French government continues to shelter the actually convicted sexual predator, Roman Polanski, and sheltered Iran's first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.
You didn't provide the link to SIO report, but I assume this is it: [1]. The report is mostly dedicated to teenagers trying to find ways to sell self-filmed content. You cherry-picked claims against Telegram to make allegations look more serious than they are, and didn't mention that there are more serious claims against Western platforms.
This is a quote from the beginning of the report:
> Large networks of accounts, putatively operated by minors, are openly advertising self-generated child sexual abuse material (SG-CSAM) for sale.
(by the way this might be because it is very difficult to find a legitimate job if you are a teenager without any natural skills and talents. Why doesn't government do anything to change this? Where are teenagers from poor families supposed to get money from?)
> Instagram is currently the most important platform for these networks, with features that help connect buyers and sellers
> Instagram’s recommendation algorithms are a key reason for the platform’s effectiveness in advertising SG-CSAM.
> Twitter had an apparent regression allowing CSAM to be posted to public profiles, despite hashes of these images being available to platforms and researchers.
Can we expect to see Musk and Zuckerberg in the same jail with Durov then? Or justice doesn't apply to everyone equally?
Note also that the report gives following recommendations in the conclusion:
> When an account is identified as selling SG-CSAM, disabling the account should be accompanied by messaging to the seller to attempt to discourage recidivism. This messaging might include:
> The fact that this content is widely illegal and can result in prosecution; being a minor does not prevent legal consequences
So basically what reports suggests is not to do something to help teenagers from poor families to find a legitimate job, but to threaten them with a jail term for selling their own photos. So American!
> A June report from the Stanford Internet Observatory found that Telegram was the only major platform not to forbid illegal material in private channels and chats. “
If you read the report, this means that Telegram's ToS do not explicitly forbid to post illegal material in private groups. But do you need to forbid explicitly what is already forbidden by the law?
The report contains further claim though:
> It further states that “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them
This is alarming but this not exactly how it works because you can actually report messages even in one-to-one private chats, for example, if you get spam from a new contact, and they can get blocked. I never got illegal material from contacts (only spam) so I don't have experience reporting it.
> Telegram has also been observed by SIO as failing to perform even basic content enforcement on public channels, with instances of known CSAM being detected and reported by our ingest systems
If you read further, by "failing to perform basic content enforcement" they mean that Telegram doesn't check posted images again CSAM database, and imply that Telegram is obliged to do this. However, I am not sure if the law requires this.
Now I want to comment on other vaguely written claims.
> Telegram is a key component of the ecosystem of individuals trading and selling child sexual abuse materials,
What makes Telegram a "key component"? Did Durov designed Telegram and added features with primary intent to make selling illegal materials easier? This sounds implausible.
> At the heart of the case is the absence of moderation
Does he mean a lack of pre-moderation (reviewing every message before posting) or lack of response to reports? There definitely is moderation in Telegram, so the "absense of moderation" doesn't ring true to me. If would be good if they presented more details instead of vague words.
> absence of ... cooperation
"cooperation" is a vague word. Maybe France just wants to be able to read all messages in private groups under an excuse of fighting crime? This would be a completely different story then.
[1] https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jd797tp7663/20230606-...
This is a quote from the beginning of the report:
> Large networks of accounts, putatively operated by minors, are openly advertising self-generated child sexual abuse material (SG-CSAM) for sale.
(by the way this might be because it is very difficult to find a legitimate job if you are a teenager without any natural skills and talents. Why doesn't government do anything to change this? Where are teenagers from poor families supposed to get money from?)
> Instagram is currently the most important platform for these networks, with features that help connect buyers and sellers
> Instagram’s recommendation algorithms are a key reason for the platform’s effectiveness in advertising SG-CSAM.
> Twitter had an apparent regression allowing CSAM to be posted to public profiles, despite hashes of these images being available to platforms and researchers.
Can we expect to see Musk and Zuckerberg in the same jail with Durov then? Or justice doesn't apply to everyone equally?
Note also that the report gives following recommendations in the conclusion:
> When an account is identified as selling SG-CSAM, disabling the account should be accompanied by messaging to the seller to attempt to discourage recidivism. This messaging might include:
> The fact that this content is widely illegal and can result in prosecution; being a minor does not prevent legal consequences
So basically what reports suggests is not to do something to help teenagers from poor families to find a legitimate job, but to threaten them with a jail term for selling their own photos. So American!
> A June report from the Stanford Internet Observatory found that Telegram was the only major platform not to forbid illegal material in private channels and chats. “
If you read the report, this means that Telegram's ToS do not explicitly forbid to post illegal material in private groups. But do you need to forbid explicitly what is already forbidden by the law?
The report contains further claim though:
> It further states that “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them
This is alarming but this not exactly how it works because you can actually report messages even in one-to-one private chats, for example, if you get spam from a new contact, and they can get blocked. I never got illegal material from contacts (only spam) so I don't have experience reporting it.
> Telegram has also been observed by SIO as failing to perform even basic content enforcement on public channels, with instances of known CSAM being detected and reported by our ingest systems
If you read further, by "failing to perform basic content enforcement" they mean that Telegram doesn't check posted images again CSAM database, and imply that Telegram is obliged to do this. However, I am not sure if the law requires this.
Now I want to comment on other vaguely written claims.
> Telegram is a key component of the ecosystem of individuals trading and selling child sexual abuse materials,
What makes Telegram a "key component"? Did Durov designed Telegram and added features with primary intent to make selling illegal materials easier? This sounds implausible.
> At the heart of the case is the absence of moderation
Does he mean a lack of pre-moderation (reviewing every message before posting) or lack of response to reports? There definitely is moderation in Telegram, so the "absense of moderation" doesn't ring true to me. If would be good if they presented more details instead of vague words.
> absence of ... cooperation
"cooperation" is a vague word. Maybe France just wants to be able to read all messages in private groups under an excuse of fighting crime? This would be a completely different story then.
[1] https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jd797tp7663/20230606-...
No social network is perfect but talk to me when Twitter or Meta ignore CSAM agencies repeated requests. I'll be waiting. Otherwise, Telegram is complicit.
"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."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/telegram-ceo-pavel-dur...
"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."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/telegram-ceo-pavel-dur...
Ignoring reports of illegal material is one thing; ignoring invitations to join US-based programs or cooperating with them which Telegram is not required to do by law is different thing. The article for some reasons doesn't clearly states what it means; the author uses vague ambigious wording instead like politicians do.
The article mentions a 2023 report of SIO [1] on minors trying to earn money by selling their own photos online; the report mentions Telegram, but notes that Instagram and Twitter are worse:
> Instagram is currently the most important platform for these networks, with features that help connect buyers and sellers
> Instagram’s recommendation algorithms are a key reason for the platform’s effectiveness in advertising SG-CSAM.
> Twitter had an apparent regression allowing CSAM to be posted to public profiles, despite hashes of these images being available to platforms and researchers
Yet, for some strange reason Musk and Zuckerberg are not under investigation.
Note, that the report also doesn't give any recommendations to govts to help minors to earn money they need the legal way to solve the root issue.
[1] https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jd797tp7663/20230606-...
The article mentions a 2023 report of SIO [1] on minors trying to earn money by selling their own photos online; the report mentions Telegram, but notes that Instagram and Twitter are worse:
> Instagram is currently the most important platform for these networks, with features that help connect buyers and sellers
> Instagram’s recommendation algorithms are a key reason for the platform’s effectiveness in advertising SG-CSAM.
> Twitter had an apparent regression allowing CSAM to be posted to public profiles, despite hashes of these images being available to platforms and researchers
Yet, for some strange reason Musk and Zuckerberg are not under investigation.
Note, that the report also doesn't give any recommendations to govts to help minors to earn money they need the legal way to solve the root issue.
[1] https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jd797tp7663/20230606-...
How do we know Signal actually does that?
They simply can't collect much. Plus keeping secret records would be massive legal liability, especially in the EU.
The protocol is public. Signal software is free and open-source. Its mobile clients, desktop client, and server are all published under the AGPL-3.0. Any modifications for the app binaries and protocols would be quickly noticed. Hackers and cybersecurity companies are not fools.
The protocol is public. Signal software is free and open-source. Its mobile clients, desktop client, and server are all published under the AGPL-3.0. Any modifications for the app binaries and protocols would be quickly noticed. Hackers and cybersecurity companies are not fools.
> Any modifications for the app binaries and protocols would be quickly noticed. Hackers and cybersecurity companies are not fools.
Would it though? The Signal server source repo was once not updated for almost a year until somebody noticed and called them out on it:
https://lemmy.ml/post/55595
Would it though? The Signal server source repo was once not updated for almost a year until somebody noticed and called them out on it:
https://lemmy.ml/post/55595
It's the client code that tells you if they could have any of the plaintext.
> Any modifications for the app binaries and protocols would be quickly noticed
Signal doesn't support reproducible builds, does it?
Signal doesn't support reproducible builds, does it?
There are reproducible builds on android, and reproducible builds are simply not possible on iOS due to Apple's own decisions.
It’s entirely possible to inspect a binary even if the build isn’t reproducible.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41361609
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41361609
"Entirely possible" is a misleading argument.
I don't understand why Signal is not pursuing the reproducible builds. It looks suspicious. Verification of a binary takes a huge effort and can only be done by knowledgeable people. Case in point: nobody noticed or cared about the lack of undisclosed binary updates of Signal without released sources.
I don't understand why Signal is not pursuing the reproducible builds. It looks suspicious. Verification of a binary takes a huge effort and can only be done by knowledgeable people. Case in point: nobody noticed or cared about the lack of undisclosed binary updates of Signal without released sources.
If you want to know what an application really does, you should grab a copy of IDA Pro or Ghidra and inspect the binaries.
[deleted]
Did you even click the link?
What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone. To be logically consistent, what if say Iran wants the records of the head of the CIA? The concern is not limited to Telegram; it generalizes to any messaging app.
There is no logical inconsistency here. Durov, a citizen of France, failed to comply with their own country's process. This isn't a "random country" applied "for anyone".
But is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no.
> is Telegram incorporated in France? Are Durov and Telegram one and the same? No and no
You're proposing that France shouldn't be able to arrest the leader of a cartel or mafia if they file paperwork in Delaware?
You're proposing that France shouldn't be able to arrest the leader of a cartel or mafia if they file paperwork in Delaware?
One will find that countries don't really distinguish when it's one of their citizens taking action and those citizens are within the country's jurisdiction.
Governments are funny like that. If I go to Germany and kill a man in the street, I might not end up under arrest if I go to, say, Russia, but if I go back to my home country? Yeah, they'd arrest me for a crime committed elsewhere in someone else's jurisdiction we're allied with.
Governments are funny like that. If I go to Germany and kill a man in the street, I might not end up under arrest if I go to, say, Russia, but if I go back to my home country? Yeah, they'd arrest me for a crime committed elsewhere in someone else's jurisdiction we're allied with.
Demanding logical consistency yet hiding behind the farce of incorporation state... does Telegram do business in France?
It's a good thing France didn't arrest Telegram then ;)
Telegram operates in France, this is sufficient.
Edit: By "operates" I mean its services are accessible from France. If an entity cannot or will not comply with EU laws (e.g. GDPR) they can block clients from the EU. I regularly come across such websites with geoblocks (a few times a year).
Edit: By "operates" I mean its services are accessible from France. If an entity cannot or will not comply with EU laws (e.g. GDPR) they can block clients from the EU. I regularly come across such websites with geoblocks (a few times a year).
Are any of their servers actually in France? Or is anybody with a website automatically "operating" in Iran, China and Egypt?
You can access the service from France, and you can create an account from a French number.
Also the website is in French and the illegal messages are likely in French. This is far enough.
Now add on top, that the CEO is French on French soil...
Also the website is in French and the illegal messages are likely in French. This is far enough.
Now add on top, that the CEO is French on French soil...
> You can access the service from France
You can access substantially all internet services from France, and from any other country that doesn't explicitly block them, and from most of the ones that do via satellite internet or VPNs etc.
> you can create an account from a French number.
You can have a French number and not be in France. Also, this is the location of the user, not the company. This is basically the same reasoning as the internet; the phone network is global and anybody can call anybody. That doesn't mean that every service provider is in every country.
> Also the website is in French and the illegal messages are likely in French.
There are millions of people who speak French who aren't in France.
> Now add on top, that the CEO is French on French soil...
But we're talking about where the company is operating. Should France arrest the French CEO of a US company that does something in the US which is legal in the US but not in France?
You can access substantially all internet services from France, and from any other country that doesn't explicitly block them, and from most of the ones that do via satellite internet or VPNs etc.
> you can create an account from a French number.
You can have a French number and not be in France. Also, this is the location of the user, not the company. This is basically the same reasoning as the internet; the phone network is global and anybody can call anybody. That doesn't mean that every service provider is in every country.
> Also the website is in French and the illegal messages are likely in French.
There are millions of people who speak French who aren't in France.
> Now add on top, that the CEO is French on French soil...
But we're talking about where the company is operating. Should France arrest the French CEO of a US company that does something in the US which is legal in the US but not in France?
For internet websites, if a website can be accessed from France, then the French law applies.
It's under the same principle that Megaupload was shut down by the US, despite the company was not connected to the US or operating from the US.
This is why some websites block visitors from France (e.g. newspapers not willing to bother with GDPR for example) or that some sites block visitors, registrations and payments from the US (e.g. investment websites).
Here Telegram refuses to respect French law. Whether they are ethically right or not, it's one debate, but in the meantime, the detectives want to gather elements.
It's the standard way that police talks there. They don't send lawyers. Instead they put you in custody for interrogation.
A bit rude, I recognize it, though relatively common. Even the French CEO of Uber was sent in custody there.
It's under the same principle that Megaupload was shut down by the US, despite the company was not connected to the US or operating from the US.
This is why some websites block visitors from France (e.g. newspapers not willing to bother with GDPR for example) or that some sites block visitors, registrations and payments from the US (e.g. investment websites).
Here Telegram refuses to respect French law. Whether they are ethically right or not, it's one debate, but in the meantime, the detectives want to gather elements.
It's the standard way that police talks there. They don't send lawyers. Instead they put you in custody for interrogation.
A bit rude, I recognize it, though relatively common. Even the French CEO of Uber was sent in custody there.
> The law is quite simple (and it's not just in France), if a website can be accessed from France, then the French law applies.
The internet is global. Any website can by default be accessed from any country. Are you proposing that anyone with a website is subject to the laws of every country? Notice that this is impossible to do; the laws of different countries will require mutually exclusive things.
> It's under the same principle that Megaupload was shut down by the US, despite the company was not connected to the US or operating from the US.
You're citing an extremely controversial practice to justify the same. The question is what should be the case and is reasonable, not what some country has managed to get away with through some questionable shenanigans or might makes right.
> At least to show: "we tried our best".
This is just a fig leaf. IP location services are notoriously unreliable and trivially bypassed. Anybody in any location can choose the IP address they make a request from. Also, fragmenting the internet in this way is poison and should be discouraged as a matter of policy. You're effectively asking websites to block foreign countries by default because they don't have the resources to hire a lawyer for every country that exists to see how to comply with their laws.
The internet is global. Any website can by default be accessed from any country. Are you proposing that anyone with a website is subject to the laws of every country? Notice that this is impossible to do; the laws of different countries will require mutually exclusive things.
> It's under the same principle that Megaupload was shut down by the US, despite the company was not connected to the US or operating from the US.
You're citing an extremely controversial practice to justify the same. The question is what should be the case and is reasonable, not what some country has managed to get away with through some questionable shenanigans or might makes right.
> At least to show: "we tried our best".
This is just a fig leaf. IP location services are notoriously unreliable and trivially bypassed. Anybody in any location can choose the IP address they make a request from. Also, fragmenting the internet in this way is poison and should be discouraged as a matter of policy. You're effectively asking websites to block foreign countries by default because they don't have the resources to hire a lawyer for every country that exists to see how to comply with their laws.
The ship has long sailed. EU decided that our laws will be applied maximally - to all EU citizens regardless of their location and for everyone within our territorial control.
And if other countries like USA have conflicting laws like Patriot Act then companies can be even forced to divest from EU or split their businesses so that USA branch can not enforce USA spy laws in EU. Google Privacy Shield.
And if other countries like USA have conflicting laws like Patriot Act then companies can be even forced to divest from EU or split their businesses so that USA branch can not enforce USA spy laws in EU. Google Privacy Shield.
> The ship has long sailed. EU decided that our laws will be applied maximally - to all EU citizens regardless of their location and for everyone within our territorial control.
Ships that have sailed can still be sunk.
> And if other countries like USA have conflicting laws like Patriot Act then companies can be even forced to divest from EU or split their businesses so that USA branch can not enforce USA spy laws in EU.
How is this supposed to apply to a small business with one employee?
Ships that have sailed can still be sunk.
> And if other countries like USA have conflicting laws like Patriot Act then companies can be even forced to divest from EU or split their businesses so that USA branch can not enforce USA spy laws in EU.
How is this supposed to apply to a small business with one employee?
> What you're saying in effect is that any random country should be able to subpoena records for anyone
Durov is a French citizen. He was arrested in France. This isn't a Kim Dotcom situation.
Durov is a French citizen. He was arrested in France. This isn't a Kim Dotcom situation.
If the head of the CIA stepped foot in Iran, you bet your butt that they'd be at serious risk of arrest. The only reason this wouldn't be the case is Iran not having Nukes.
[deleted]
How one country having "nukes" makes something more or less legal? I don't see the connection here. Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person. If critisizing Communist Party is a crime, it doesn't matter who commits it, everybody should be treated equally.
> Crime is a crime no matter what is the nationality and position of a person
Iran apprehending an American official crosses from criminality and law into the anarchy of geopolitics.
For example, the fact that we have nukes is probably one among many considerations a foreign power might weigh when thinking about kidnapping the President.
Iran apprehending an American official crosses from criminality and law into the anarchy of geopolitics.
For example, the fact that we have nukes is probably one among many considerations a foreign power might weigh when thinking about kidnapping the President.
If the head of the CIA was chatting on Telegram, they ought to be able to subpoena the records.
It's not just about Telegram though. It applies to any messaging app. Surely the head of the CIA uses some messaging app.
Government communications are typically exempt from subpoena by foreign courts. Telegram being available to the global audience would be in a different category. I doubt the head of the CIA uses it.
"rules for thee not for me"
EU has been doing a lot of really bad stuff regarding the freedom of private communication recently (last few years), but they still manage to complain about others.
EU has been doing a lot of really bad stuff regarding the freedom of private communication recently (last few years), but they still manage to complain about others.
"Signal enables crime and hinders police work in much more clever ways than Telegram."
Great argument. :)
Great argument. :)
Will you cooperate if you receive a legal warrant from China, Russia, Iran or North Korea?
Also, Telegram is accused in other things, like importing uncertified cryptographic tools. If you go to Gtihub, there are large deposits of uncertified cryptographic tools. Why ssh or openssl developers are not arrested? I am sure they do not have a proper certificate.
As I guess, this is a typical case when the law enforcement bends the vaguely written laws. A law saying something like "it is illegal to assist commiting a crime" is a typical example of such vague law: until there is a court decision you cannot even know if some event was legal or illegal. And "assist" is also a very vague term.
Also, Telegram is accused in other things, like importing uncertified cryptographic tools. If you go to Gtihub, there are large deposits of uncertified cryptographic tools. Why ssh or openssl developers are not arrested? I am sure they do not have a proper certificate.
As I guess, this is a typical case when the law enforcement bends the vaguely written laws. A law saying something like "it is illegal to assist commiting a crime" is a typical example of such vague law: until there is a court decision you cannot even know if some event was legal or illegal. And "assist" is also a very vague term.
> Will you cooperate if you receive a legal warrant from China, Russia, Iran or North Korea?
No. But after refusing it, I sure as hell wouldn't go there.
No. But after refusing it, I sure as hell wouldn't go there.
> I sure as hell wouldn't go there.
Don't even go close:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/belarus-divert...
Don't even go close:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/belarus-divert...
When Snowden was escaping capture form the West, err, I mean, US, we, the US, err, the Obama admin, wanted to know which plane he was in to see of they could have it "diverted".
Also, don't pretend to "go hiking" along the Iranian border...
Also, don't pretend to "go hiking" along the Iranian border...
I don't know if I should be sad that the West is trending towards treating humans as China/Russia/Iran/NK do, or if I should be happy that geopolitical powers have one less thing they disagree about.
> China, Russia, Iran or North Korea?
Probably no but I also would expect to face consequences if I go to the country whom court order I choose not to fulfill.
It's the same thing with the USA in the crypto community, you either don't sell US citizens unregulated securities or you sell and avoid USA or any country that might extradite you to USA.
I remember the days when the internet was the wild west, laws wouldn't apply and the cops lacked the tools to catch anyone or enforce anything. Those days are long gone, the rule of the thumb is that countries now have rules and tool for this stuff and if you break them better never ever visit these countries.
Probably no but I also would expect to face consequences if I go to the country whom court order I choose not to fulfill.
It's the same thing with the USA in the crypto community, you either don't sell US citizens unregulated securities or you sell and avoid USA or any country that might extradite you to USA.
I remember the days when the internet was the wild west, laws wouldn't apply and the cops lacked the tools to catch anyone or enforce anything. Those days are long gone, the rule of the thumb is that countries now have rules and tool for this stuff and if you break them better never ever visit these countries.
>It's the same thing with the USA in the crypto community, you either don't sell US citizens
When I read that at first, I thought crypto was short for cryptography, and you were referring to the crypto wars, back when most cryptography was classified as arms (weapons) in the US and it was illegal to distribute cryptographic software in many cases.
One of my instructors in college attended a US college, but during his PhD would drive to Canada to write all the code, so that the code could be legally distributed. If it was written in the US, it couldn't be.
When I read that at first, I thought crypto was short for cryptography, and you were referring to the crypto wars, back when most cryptography was classified as arms (weapons) in the US and it was illegal to distribute cryptographic software in many cases.
One of my instructors in college attended a US college, but during his PhD would drive to Canada to write all the code, so that the code could be legally distributed. If it was written in the US, it couldn't be.
Yes, US does have export regulations on cryptography and you can indeed get in trouble with the US for math, App developers who distribute through App Stores would go through the paperwork of it to stay compliant.
[deleted]
We are talking about France, no?
Is French law somehow special or superior compared to other countries legal systems?
I propose that we as participants will have at least a minimum level of sophistication and acknowledge that yes, the law in France, as a democratic country with a rule of law with an independent judiciary, the law is, indeed, somewhat special or superior compared to a dictatorship like China.
If we cannot reach this (imho very low) bar of understanding, we have no chance of a fruitful conversation. If we would continue pretending that this is an earnest stance, we would normalize, justify and enhance autocracies, which we don´t need here.
One might be better of to try furthering these kind of view points in China or any other dictatorship of choice.
If we cannot reach this (imho very low) bar of understanding, we have no chance of a fruitful conversation. If we would continue pretending that this is an earnest stance, we would normalize, justify and enhance autocracies, which we don´t need here.
One might be better of to try furthering these kind of view points in China or any other dictatorship of choice.
Laws are nothing more than rules that are - usually created and - enforced by entities with the power to enforce them. There is no comparatively objective superiority/inferiority of any particular subset of laws.
Then there are no morals at all with that particular take on how laws, morals, and the rest are formed. Equality, personal sovereignty, etc mean nothing because they are just constructs of some human’s mind that somehow got mindshare; all meaningless under your guidelines.
That's the thing though. Morals are subjective, not objective. But also morals are orthogonal to laws.
Consider a law banning the eating of meat, vs one dictating that meat should be eaten at least once per week. One of these laws must be enacted. Which one is superior? Obviously (I think), the vegetarian would consider the former superior, and the meat lover the latter.
But we can also look further into environmental differences. Given an hypothetical area where animals are abundant and plants aren't, the latter law would generally be considered superior. In an area where this is reversed, the former would be. Ultimately these will be subjective values based on the actual situation.
And there's always the power dynamic that "trumps" situations. A vegetarian gaining the power to make laws in a vegetatively poor area will obviously not - necessarily - lead to the latter law being enacted. Even if the majority of the population is made of meat lovers. And in a world dominated by vegetarians, the many will applaud and say the ban on meat is the "right thing" for those in said vegetatively poor area.
All that is just an elaborate illustration to say that yes, equality, personal sovereignty, etc really are - subjective - human constructs. And any laws surrounding them will be considered superior/inferior based on how these constructs are valued.
Consider a law banning the eating of meat, vs one dictating that meat should be eaten at least once per week. One of these laws must be enacted. Which one is superior? Obviously (I think), the vegetarian would consider the former superior, and the meat lover the latter.
But we can also look further into environmental differences. Given an hypothetical area where animals are abundant and plants aren't, the latter law would generally be considered superior. In an area where this is reversed, the former would be. Ultimately these will be subjective values based on the actual situation.
And there's always the power dynamic that "trumps" situations. A vegetarian gaining the power to make laws in a vegetatively poor area will obviously not - necessarily - lead to the latter law being enacted. Even if the majority of the population is made of meat lovers. And in a world dominated by vegetarians, the many will applaud and say the ban on meat is the "right thing" for those in said vegetatively poor area.
All that is just an elaborate illustration to say that yes, equality, personal sovereignty, etc really are - subjective - human constructs. And any laws surrounding them will be considered superior/inferior based on how these constructs are valued.
[deleted]
> Is French law somehow special or superior compared to other countries legal systems?
Yes, France has a stronger rule of law than China, Russia or North Korea [1].
That doesn't mean their laws are inherently better. But their legal system is objectively superior when it comes to something like weighing a warrant.
[1] https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/1...
Yes, France has a stronger rule of law than China, Russia or North Korea [1].
That doesn't mean their laws are inherently better. But their legal system is objectively superior when it comes to something like weighing a warrant.
[1] https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/1...
In France if you operate a telecommunication network, even encrypted, and your network is used to conduct illegal activities, you will end up with the police taking you into custody to ask you for details.
There were similar questions with Tor exit nodes:
https://lafibre.info/attaques/hebergement-dun-noeud-de-sorti...
It's legal, but you will get police interrogation.
There were similar questions with Tor exit nodes:
https://lafibre.info/attaques/hebergement-dun-noeud-de-sorti...
It's legal, but you will get police interrogation.
There is no "law" in Iran or North Korea or Russia or China. So, yes?
we don't know what he has been asked. the french authorities are testing the waters and see how much they can control the guy.
given the uproar, it seems its not the time and so they claim they are only concerned about csam.
It's amazing how many on HN are actually closet authoritarians. It was made extra clear during the pandemic and becomes clearer with every one of these posts
> amazing how many on HN are actually closet authoritarians
Signal responding to a subpoena with, in essence, a fuck you is authoritarian?
Signal responding to a subpoena with, in essence, a fuck you is authoritarian?
Signal is not very popular and maybe because of this haven't yet observed the full power of law bending and interpretation.
Given the accusations against Telegram, many of the points apply to Signal equally, including importing uncertified cryptographic tools.
Given the accusations against Telegram, many of the points apply to Signal equally, including importing uncertified cryptographic tools.
> Given the accusations against Telegram, many of the points apply to Signal equally, including importing uncertified cryptographic tools
The DoJ has its own Telegram channel [1].
[1] https://t.me/US_DOJ
The DoJ has its own Telegram channel [1].
[1] https://t.me/US_DOJ
Signal being unable to provide information to a subpoena is very different than arresting its CEO.
The comparison was only made to justify arresting Telegram's CEO. Which, yes, is authoritarian.
The comparison was only made to justify arresting Telegram's CEO. Which, yes, is authoritarian.
> Signal being unable to provide information to a subpoena is very different than arresting its CEO
If Signal had blown off the court completely, yes, that would have resulted in arrest warrants. That's at least what France alleges Durov did in the warrant.
If Signal had blown off the court completely, yes, that would have resulted in arrest warrants. That's at least what France alleges Durov did in the warrant.
Or to add sarcastically, if Telegram and/or Durov was American I'm sure there would be an uproar.
The majority of people on HN have been out of the closet about their authoritarianism for many years now.
On the flip side of the coin, it's amazing how many on HN are public anarchists. When we come together as a society to create laws, we make them for a reason, and nobody is above them.
I'll take a public anarchist over secret authoritarian any day. Also, your implication that anyone who questions authority or these charges somehow is an anarchist or believes some should be above the law is laughable
salawat(1)
The result of this is that users, especially any the government might be interested in, would use the services that don't keep any information. Which in general is good -- services shouldn't be keeping data for no reason -- but sometimes there's a reason. Maybe an ordinary user would like to have a cloud backup, but not if it could create legal liability (and then their lawyers order them not to do it).
So we should be asking if this makes sense. If the government can snatch the data from third party services without a warrant then the people interesting to them will use the ones that don't store it, and then the government can't get the data with only a subpoena anyway. They may not even be able to get it with a warrant. But it also means that people can't have any features that require a trusted third party if they're concerned about legal liability from e.g. prosecutors taking things out of context, which should be everybody because they do that all the time.
So we should be asking if this makes sense. If the government can snatch the data from third party services without a warrant then the people interesting to them will use the ones that don't store it, and then the government can't get the data with only a subpoena anyway. They may not even be able to get it with a warrant. But it also means that people can't have any features that require a trusted third party if they're concerned about legal liability from e.g. prosecutors taking things out of context, which should be everybody because they do that all the time.
[deleted]
The data the French government wants is in cleartext on Telegram's servers, but is there an argument to be made that, at least ethically, communications should be protected regardless of encrypted vs plaintext, and police should just do regular detective work to catch criminals?
Edit: PDF for the arrest warrant so that it's in context for the comments:
https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
Edit: PDF for the arrest warrant so that it's in context for the comments:
https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
> an argument to be made that, at least ethically, communications should be protected regardless of encrypted vs plaintext, and police should just do regular detective work to catch criminals?
France has fairly extreme data retention requirements [1].
[1] https://www.conseil-etat.fr/en/news/connection-data-the-coun...
France has fairly extreme data retention requirements [1].
[1] https://www.conseil-etat.fr/en/news/connection-data-the-coun...
Sending warrants and subpoenas is regular detective work.
Not when it's to another country with its own laws.
Seeing stuff like in the past few decades has me viewing criminals and police more and more alike.
At least the criminals don't hide behind a facade of public service/good.
Seeing stuff like in the past few decades has me viewing criminals and police more and more alike.
At least the criminals don't hide behind a facade of public service/good.
It is (unfortunately) regular police work.....nowadays.
Only criminals (and their defenders) complained about fingerprints being used as id, nowadays it's expected.
Time moves on.
I did set up telegram today...my contribution to the noise, as I'm a very firm believer in communications being very protected.
I do highly commend Snowdon for what he has done in the past, but his (though highly understandable) silence regarding Ukraine puts him on my shitlist. Very low down on it, but on it all the same.
I do highly commend Snowdon for what he has done in the past, but his (though highly understandable) silence regarding Ukraine puts him on my shitlist. Very low down on it, but on it all the same.
[deleted]
If you personally could lead by example, and flee the US, seek asylum in Russia only to be not "silent regarding Ukraine", your name could be deleted from my moronic shitlist too.
> silence regarding Ukraine
Do you even understand that he is forced to stay in Russia, and would prefer not to have an accidental fall from a window?
Do you even understand that he is forced to stay in Russia, and would prefer not to have an accidental fall from a window?
Is he a Russian puppet or isn’t he? If he can’t speak on ukraine for fear of being killed by Putin then everything he says should be viewed through that same lens
No, I don't think so. If people are openly advertising to provide criminal services (which is super-easy to find on Telegram; eg there are channels where you can pay people to damage property or commit violence), is it realistic to expect police to ignore that just because it's digital?
I don't really have good context on the issue but is there a reason you consider getting Telegram logs outside of "regular detective work". Intercepting communications (assuming they have a warrant, at least based on my understanding in the US) would seem to be very standard police work to me.
> Intercepting communications (assuming they have a warrant, at least based on my understanding in the US) would seem to be very standard police work to me
There is also a big difference between doing what e.g. Signal does, which is respond with everything they have, i.e. nothing, and (a) refusing to provide data you have or (b) blowing the warrant off.
There is also a big difference between doing what e.g. Signal does, which is respond with everything they have, i.e. nothing, and (a) refusing to provide data you have or (b) blowing the warrant off.
It really feels like anyone coming down at the extreme of either side of this (the French government and Snowden included) is greatly simplifying a very complex issue.
Is it complicated?
telegram purports to be "encrypted".
There has been no audit of that. The servers live in a country with questionable legal standing for digital citizens.
What the French say they are arresting him for, and what they actually know might not be the same. Given telegrams position the cyber criminal world, and its place in Russia and eastern Europe I would not be surprised if there is a litany of reasons we aren't hearing about.
telegram purports to be "encrypted".
There has been no audit of that. The servers live in a country with questionable legal standing for digital citizens.
What the French say they are arresting him for, and what they actually know might not be the same. Given telegrams position the cyber criminal world, and its place in Russia and eastern Europe I would not be surprised if there is a litany of reasons we aren't hearing about.
Also, remember in 2022 Snowden swore allegiance to Russia when he became a citizen so we can't just assume he is neutral.
* https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/04/a-decade-on-edward-sn...
* https://www.opb.org/article/2023/06/04/a-decade-on-edward-sn...
Most of us give our "loyalties" to the power structures native to the lands we live in because it gives more more benefits than not doing that.
He didn't have much choice, since the USA wanted to Epstein him.
psunavy03(1)
Does he have a choice now not to look like a clown? It's an interesting question.
> Does he have a choice now not to look like a clown?
Probably not. I doubt, for example, that he could surrender himself to the West if he wanted to.
Probably not. I doubt, for example, that he could surrender himself to the West if he wanted to.
Durov chose to become a French citizen. What do you make of that?
assume anything posted on a chat app will or can be public. someone can literally take a screenshot of the conversation even if encrypted.
You're mentioning two (largely orthogonal) threats to messaging privacy, and arguing that because we can't really do much about one, we should also just ignore the other?
or maybe don't use chat apps at all if you care about privacy. not a hard concept
> Is it complicated?
Yes. We're dealing with French law on French soil in respect of a dual national.
We literally have zero official documents from the arrest. (EDIT: We got one!) This could be an elaborate scheme to route out an FSB plot. Or it could be as simple as he has a bunch of drugs on his jet.
In summary, it's a fundamentally complicated situation into which we have imperfect information. Coming to a strong conclusion, at this point, is an expression of faith. Not reason.
Yes. We're dealing with French law on French soil in respect of a dual national.
We literally have zero official documents from the arrest. (EDIT: We got one!) This could be an elaborate scheme to route out an FSB plot. Or it could be as simple as he has a bunch of drugs on his jet.
In summary, it's a fundamentally complicated situation into which we have imperfect information. Coming to a strong conclusion, at this point, is an expression of faith. Not reason.
I think this is the doc, saw it on Twitter 1h ago: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
relevant:
> So it appears that Pavel Durov has been using cryptography without a license.
Direct link to image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV7S_fMaoAAf3w3?format=jpg&name=...
https://x.com/matthew_d_green/status/1828130491805192226
relevant:
> So it appears that Pavel Durov has been using cryptography without a license.
Direct link to image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GV7S_fMaoAAf3w3?format=jpg&name=...
https://x.com/matthew_d_green/status/1828130491805192226
Thank you. Echoing the original comment about "anyone coming down at the extreme of either side of this... greatly simplifying a very complex issue," (a) very few people with strong feelings about this case had this document when they came to a conclusion and (b) this document is not enough to make an informed decision about what's going on.
It's a press release, not a document that substantively lays out the factual allegations. Compare that to something like the indictment here in the US: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258..., where it is pretty explicitly laid out what the alleged acts were that led to each of the counts.
So it's still manifestly unclear why he was arrested (although I note that the press release says he wasn't arrested, merely held for questioning until Wednesday).
So it's still manifestly unclear why he was arrested (although I note that the press release says he wasn't arrested, merely held for questioning until Wednesday).
Yes, and, people like devman0 making this top-rated comment in the last thread:
>A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less.
When they have absolutely no idea what's going on. The number one terrible take is this very quoted comment.
Commenters and their supporters on this site love to make unequivocal statements like this as if they possessed the mind of god themselves.
But devman0 and people who upvoted their comment: you are responsible for this misinformation. Think before you shout to the heavens on a topic you know absolutely nothing about. That's on all of you.
Anyone else reading this comment thread: discuss with restraint based on the knowledge you have. Unless you are directly involved in this case, you don't have even the faintest clue of what you're talking about.
>A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less.
When they have absolutely no idea what's going on. The number one terrible take is this very quoted comment.
Commenters and their supporters on this site love to make unequivocal statements like this as if they possessed the mind of god themselves.
But devman0 and people who upvoted their comment: you are responsible for this misinformation. Think before you shout to the heavens on a topic you know absolutely nothing about. That's on all of you.
Anyone else reading this comment thread: discuss with restraint based on the knowledge you have. Unless you are directly involved in this case, you don't have even the faintest clue of what you're talking about.
SO they snatched him over something that is in effect "administrative"?
Nothing complicated. He got snatched because someone somewhere wants something from him and this is the "public" reason. If he's out, telegram is compromised, if he stays in we can't even assume that it isn't.
Nothing complicated. He got snatched because someone somewhere wants something from him and this is the "public" reason. If he's out, telegram is compromised, if he stays in we can't even assume that it isn't.
> SO they snatched him over something that is in effect "administrative"?
Did we read the same warrant? Those aren't all administrative charges.
Did we read the same warrant? Those aren't all administrative charges.
telegram purports to be "encrypted".
The whole encryption issue seems like a total sideshow to me. I've been on Telegram for years and only exchanged a few DMs in that time. There are tons of public channels which require no approval or exchange of information to join.
The whole encryption issue seems like a total sideshow to me. I've been on Telegram for years and only exchanged a few DMs in that time. There are tons of public channels which require no approval or exchange of information to join.
Go on...
Even Nassim Taleb[1] seems to think Macron is in the wrong, not to mention Snowden. You also had Macron saying that he envisioned shutting down Social media in the event of riots. That is no way is a commitment to freedom of expression. Imagine shutting down Facebook or X during BLM riots, or any other mass riot? That's so antithetical to the US first amendment right to free expression.
That said, it's no surprise that anyone who doesn't identify with a riot wants to suppress freedom of expression on an unrelated platform and those who agree with a movement or riot, will want to ensure freedom of expression on a given platform even if they previously and into the future might want to shutdown the same medium for allowing expression they disagree with.
[1]https://x.com/nntaleb/status/1828100412047573104
That said, it's no surprise that anyone who doesn't identify with a riot wants to suppress freedom of expression on an unrelated platform and those who agree with a movement or riot, will want to ensure freedom of expression on a given platform even if they previously and into the future might want to shutdown the same medium for allowing expression they disagree with.
[1]https://x.com/nntaleb/status/1828100412047573104
They actually did just do that: France legally cut off social media in the overseas territory of New Caledonia (in the wake of mass protests or riots over a voting rights law).
- "The French government hasn’t formally specified why it singled out TikTok for a block."
- "Philippe Gomes, the former president of New Caledonia's government, told POLITICO the decision aimed to stop protesters from "organizing reunions and protests" through the app."
https://www.politico.eu/article/french-tiktok-ban-new-caledo... ("French TikTok block in overseas territory sets ‘dangerous precedent,’ critics warn")
- "The French government hasn’t formally specified why it singled out TikTok for a block."
- "Philippe Gomes, the former president of New Caledonia's government, told POLITICO the decision aimed to stop protesters from "organizing reunions and protests" through the app."
https://www.politico.eu/article/french-tiktok-ban-new-caledo... ("French TikTok block in overseas territory sets ‘dangerous precedent,’ critics warn")
You know, this is sad. It's also sad when legality is invoked. Venezuela, Cuba do lots of things "legally" --things that in some parts of the world the use of the term would seem suspect.
Just because it's legal does not mean they did the right thing to do.
Just because it's legal does not mean they did the right thing to do.
So many think legal = moral. While they frequently coincide, they must always be viewed critically.
Ok, before everyone loses their minds over this, let me point out some interesting details:
- Durov was an author of VKontakte, I suppose you can say it's Russian Facebook, then there were some events resulting in him leaving VK, and leaving the country;
- He started Telegram, and supposedly at this point he was a dissident, but strangely, in Russia everyone and their brother were using Telegram. This includes government officials, military, etc, etc.
- The latest developments occurred after he visited Azerbaijan, where it was speculated he met Putin. Right after that, he boards his plane and goes directly to Paris, where he knew he was wanted. There are some speculations that he wanted to be arrested, because the alternative was worse. How worse? It's a speculation, obviously, but we know what Putin can do to people he disagree with.
Bottom line, there is much we don't know about this. Reducing it to "free speech" issue is simplifying it. Somebody like Snowden, who said nothing about free speech in Russia (where basically everything is censored), should refrain from commenting.
Finally, I find it's unacceptable that we have to rely on software provided by PRIVATE COMPANIES to securely communicate between individuals. This is what the Internet was supposed to be about - a set of communication standards. With the current state of cryptography, we should be able to solve this as a public standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
- Durov was an author of VKontakte, I suppose you can say it's Russian Facebook, then there were some events resulting in him leaving VK, and leaving the country;
- He started Telegram, and supposedly at this point he was a dissident, but strangely, in Russia everyone and their brother were using Telegram. This includes government officials, military, etc, etc.
- The latest developments occurred after he visited Azerbaijan, where it was speculated he met Putin. Right after that, he boards his plane and goes directly to Paris, where he knew he was wanted. There are some speculations that he wanted to be arrested, because the alternative was worse. How worse? It's a speculation, obviously, but we know what Putin can do to people he disagree with.
Bottom line, there is much we don't know about this. Reducing it to "free speech" issue is simplifying it. Somebody like Snowden, who said nothing about free speech in Russia (where basically everything is censored), should refrain from commenting.
Finally, I find it's unacceptable that we have to rely on software provided by PRIVATE COMPANIES to securely communicate between individuals. This is what the Internet was supposed to be about - a set of communication standards. With the current state of cryptography, we should be able to solve this as a public standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
You should also look into who's screaming bloody murder following his arrest. Basically, all the usual Russian characters - the foreign ministry which somehow managed to put together a protest super fast on the weekend, all the Russia TV personas, "independent journalists", and the Western useful idiots - Musk first among them. That would never happen for a regular "dissident".
[deleted]
> occurred after he visited Azerbaijan, where it was speculated he met Putin. Right after that, he boards his plane and goes directly to Paris
How credible are these claims?
How credible are these claims?
It’s a fact he went to Azerbaijan at the same time Putin did. It’s also a fact that he flew to the Paris right after. Putin spokesman said they did not meet. There were speculations that they did - references are on Wikipedia page.
Would Snowden have said the same thing if Durov didn't escape from Russia before he was arrested? Probably not, Snowden is part of the Russian Spy and Disinformation campaign. He is basically a Russian agent.
Exactly my thought too.
> Probably not, Snowden is part of the Russian Spy and Disinformation campaign. He is basically a Russian agent.
love when everything inconvenient to the United States government and it's affiliates is "disinformation"
love when everything inconvenient to the United States government and it's affiliates is "disinformation"
> when everything inconvenient to the United States government and it's affiliates is "disinformation"
That's not what disinformation means. Disinformation is a polite way of saying lies [1].
[1] https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/schwerpunkte/EN/disinform...
That's not what disinformation means. Disinformation is a polite way of saying lies [1].
[1] https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/schwerpunkte/EN/disinform...
and love the people that only apply this thinking in a foreign policy context and not domestic because it's inconvenient to their party...
Really? How convenient for you to just blame the USA and list France as an affiliate. If the USA wanted him (Durov), they could have arrested him a long time ago.
Why doesn't Snowden speak about the horrors of the Russian war in Ukraine where woman and children are raped and shot?
He only speaks when it is beneficial for his masters.
Why doesn't Snowden speak about the horrors of the Russian war in Ukraine where woman and children are raped and shot?
He only speaks when it is beneficial for his masters.
"Why doesn't Snowden speak about...", this would be because he likes breathing.
> love when everything inconvenient to the United States government and it's affiliates is "disinformation"
I thought and still think that Snowden is a brave and righteous man for airing the US government's dirty laundry.
Not him becoming a Russian citizen, but rather his silence on the bloody war of Putin, however, makes me think that I should take Snowden's words with a pinch of salt.
I thought and still think that Snowden is a brave and righteous man for airing the US government's dirty laundry.
Not him becoming a Russian citizen, but rather his silence on the bloody war of Putin, however, makes me think that I should take Snowden's words with a pinch of salt.
He is living in Russia. A place where government critics have a tendency to defenestrate themselves.
That he is not openly endorsing the current government might be as much latitude as he is allowed.
That he is not openly endorsing the current government might be as much latitude as he is allowed.
Do you really think Putin would hesitate to arrest him if he did that?
Snowden knows he is being watched closely. I suppose that is itself a reason to take what he says with a grain of salt, but I certainly don't take his silence on the Ukraine war as evidence of assent.
Snowden knows he is being watched closely. I suppose that is itself a reason to take what he says with a grain of salt, but I certainly don't take his silence on the Ukraine war as evidence of assent.
It's just not like Snowden of the past to endorse apps with bad privacy defaults and non encrypted group chats like Telegram. I'd have understood if he had said the same if the CEO of Signal was arrested, but I can't understand it for Telegram, an app that's mostly not used in an e2e encrypted way.
Telegram is also an app that is widely used by Russian troops to organize and also for dissemination of propaganda and misinformation. It's just not characteristic of Snowden to endorse apps that could potentially be honeypots/backdoored, and to equate such apps as important to free speech.
Telegram is also an app that is widely used by Russian troops to organize and also for dissemination of propaganda and misinformation. It's just not characteristic of Snowden to endorse apps that could potentially be honeypots/backdoored, and to equate such apps as important to free speech.
> love when everything inconvenient to the United States government and it's affiliates is "disinformation"
This tweet is literally plain propaganda move, as it has little to do with human rights... and Snowden has been a treasure trove of Russian sponsored propaganda lately.
To the point of me thinking that his Twitter is just some FSB agent writing posts for him.
This tweet is literally plain propaganda move, as it has little to do with human rights... and Snowden has been a treasure trove of Russian sponsored propaganda lately.
To the point of me thinking that his Twitter is just some FSB agent writing posts for him.
> Would Snowden have said the same thing if Durov didn't escape from Russia before he was arrested?
Why not? What's the thinking here?
> Probably not, Snowden is part of the Russian Spy and Disinformation campaign. He is basically a Russian agent.
Any evidence for that?
Why not? What's the thinking here?
> Probably not, Snowden is part of the Russian Spy and Disinformation campaign. He is basically a Russian agent.
Any evidence for that?
> Any evidence for that?
No. But it's reasonable to presume he's a compromised source. That doesn't mean he wants to be, nor that everything he's saying has been dictated to him. But his public communications would be, at the very least, monitored and vetted.
No. But it's reasonable to presume he's a compromised source. That doesn't mean he wants to be, nor that everything he's saying has been dictated to him. But his public communications would be, at the very least, monitored and vetted.
Assuming that that's true (which wouldn't make any sense to me, but let's say), why would Snowden defend Durov?
When you learn how Russian intelligence community operates, you realize that this isn't as much a defense of Durov...
This is another way of trying to inflate an incident, to create "an elephant out of a fly"(as they say in Russia)
This has little to no relevance on freedom of speech
This is another way of trying to inflate an incident, to create "an elephant out of a fly"(as they say in Russia)
This has little to no relevance on freedom of speech
If Telegram helps Mother Russia more than it hurts it, which it likely does + it's something Snowden would reasonably say. Makes perfect sense to me.
>Any evidence for that?
at this point he is at the mercy of his FSB handler, either he posts what he is told/expected to or he loses usefulness and joins Russell 'Texas' Bentley as a cautionary tale.
at this point he is at the mercy of his FSB handler, either he posts what he is told/expected to or he loses usefulness and joins Russell 'Texas' Bentley as a cautionary tale.
His continued existance in Russia antagonizes the US Intelligence Community. That itself has value to Russia. Not tremendous value, but value nevertheless.
Snowden left the United States because the Federal Government wants to imprison him. The government wants to imprison him because he revealed them to be engaged in illegal surveillance on a scale that makes the Stasi's seem modest by comparison. To stay out of prison, he had to go to a country which wouldn't extradite him, hence his presence in Russia.
Edward Snowden is a hero who has made a tremendous sacrifice for Americans and for American ideals. The fact that he has to live in Russia to enjoy peace and freedom is a damning indictment, to be sure, but not of Edward Snowden.
Edward Snowden is a hero who has made a tremendous sacrifice for Americans and for American ideals. The fact that he has to live in Russia to enjoy peace and freedom is a damning indictment, to be sure, but not of Edward Snowden.
I wouldn't call it a "tremendous sacrifice" then. It would have been had he decided to face trial, or at least not flee to a country that is the historical enemy of the US with access to who knows how many copies of secret documents so that he could save his ass.
I don't know how a trial would have ended, but considering how much public attention he got, including many supporters, he would have had a fair trial, or at least, fair enough for the cameras. Chances are that by now, he would have served his time in prison (he broke the law after all) and be a free US citizen. After all, Assange and Manning are both free right now.
Yes, years in prison is not fun, at all (hence the "sacrifice" part), but I guess his stay in Russia is not particularly fun either. And now, he risks an even greater sentence should he go back to the US.
His actions, though undeniably human, taint his status as a hero.
I don't know how a trial would have ended, but considering how much public attention he got, including many supporters, he would have had a fair trial, or at least, fair enough for the cameras. Chances are that by now, he would have served his time in prison (he broke the law after all) and be a free US citizen. After all, Assange and Manning are both free right now.
Yes, years in prison is not fun, at all (hence the "sacrifice" part), but I guess his stay in Russia is not particularly fun either. And now, he risks an even greater sentence should he go back to the US.
His actions, though undeniably human, taint his status as a hero.
> I wouldn't call it a "tremendous sacrifice" then.
Moving 10K miles away from you family and friends, never to return home isn't a tremendous sacrifice? Living the rest of your life in fear of being snatched up or murdered by the CIA isn't a tremendous sacrifice? Okay, dude.
> It would have been had he decided to face trial
It's only a sacrifice if you submit corrupt justice? Yikes.
> or at least not flee to a country that is the historical enemy of the US...
This is the best option to avoid extradition, as you well know.
> ...with access to who knows how many copies of secret documents so that he could save his ass.
What a damning hypothetical!
> I don't know how a trial would have ended, but considering how much public attention he got, including many supporters, he would have had a fair trial, or at least, fair enough for the cameras.
This is weaselspeak for "we all know he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial."
> Chances are that by now, he would have served his time in prison
A decade in prison. For doing his duty.
> His actions, though undeniably human, taint his status as a hero.
Yours is the morality of a Vichy collaborator. True heroes submit to injustice? Bullshit! True heroes fight injustice and thumb their noses at corrupt centers of power.
Moving 10K miles away from you family and friends, never to return home isn't a tremendous sacrifice? Living the rest of your life in fear of being snatched up or murdered by the CIA isn't a tremendous sacrifice? Okay, dude.
> It would have been had he decided to face trial
It's only a sacrifice if you submit corrupt justice? Yikes.
> or at least not flee to a country that is the historical enemy of the US...
This is the best option to avoid extradition, as you well know.
> ...with access to who knows how many copies of secret documents so that he could save his ass.
What a damning hypothetical!
> I don't know how a trial would have ended, but considering how much public attention he got, including many supporters, he would have had a fair trial, or at least, fair enough for the cameras.
This is weaselspeak for "we all know he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial."
> Chances are that by now, he would have served his time in prison
A decade in prison. For doing his duty.
> His actions, though undeniably human, taint his status as a hero.
Yours is the morality of a Vichy collaborator. True heroes submit to injustice? Bullshit! True heroes fight injustice and thumb their noses at corrupt centers of power.
[deleted]
the most interesting thing I've read on this subject is that Russia is using Telegram as a military communication tool. In the early days of the Ukraine war there were some reports on how the offical communication infrastructure they had built had failed quite badly.
There's speculation (but no proof) that Russia already has access to the cryptographic keys for Telegram. They were very intent on getting access or banning the service some years ago, and then rather suddenly stopped talking about it.
There's speculation (but no proof) that Russia already has access to the cryptographic keys for Telegram. They were very intent on getting access or banning the service some years ago, and then rather suddenly stopped talking about it.
Is Durov even charged with anything? As I understand this release, he is being detained for questioning on an unnamed person being charged to several offenses:
https://x.com/jsrailton/status/1828125807035756706
https://x.com/jsrailton/status/1828125807035756706
The twitter link you posted contain the charge docs. Do they not?
No, it states Durov was arrested in context of a judicial investigation of a an unnamed person. Durov himself, to my knowledge, has not been charged with any crimes.
In European legislation "getting charged" usually happens after the investigation is finished. This can take many months, even years. Until then the arrest warrant is periodically checked in court by a judge.
>basic human rights
- selling drugs
- selling hacking/ddossing services
- posting beheading videos, latest one had Ukrainian soldiers head on a spike
- sending cruise missile targeting coordinates to military units
According to outraged russians those all among the things French prosecutors mentioned in arrest warrant.
- selling drugs
- selling hacking/ddossing services
- posting beheading videos, latest one had Ukrainian soldiers head on a spike
- sending cruise missile targeting coordinates to military units
According to outraged russians those all among the things French prosecutors mentioned in arrest warrant.
for those comparing this platform to silk road or dark web with stuff like this: there is no proof that Durov is directly involved in these activities or is promoting it.
non-cooperation with information from law enforcement of a foreign government is the same as the discourse about us-based tech not complying to chinese requests or those from US adversaries. that alone does not fly in the court of law, at least for rich and influential people.
the only thing to wonder is if there was an existing warrant issued against him in place much before he landed in france, and if so why he decided to travel there.
non-cooperation with information from law enforcement of a foreign government is the same as the discourse about us-based tech not complying to chinese requests or those from US adversaries. that alone does not fly in the court of law, at least for rich and influential people.
the only thing to wonder is if there was an existing warrant issued against him in place much before he landed in france, and if so why he decided to travel there.
unless he personally did all of those, this is a separate issue. by the same logic you dont sue gun manufacturers for all the deaths caused by these guns.
> you dont sue gun manufacturers for all the deaths caused by these guns
We literally had to pass a law because people kept doing that [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
We literally had to pass a law because people kept doing that [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
So we don't do it anymore.
The exception proves the rule. In general, we hold providers liable for the damage their goods and services do.
Drugs are sold on every platform, including Instagram. The other parts are just as likely to end up on Facebook as they are Telegram too, there really is no point in trying to make this sound like the USA-based platforms aren't utterly rife with the things you mentioned too. The only difference here is that Telegram isn't USA-owned and doesn't need to bow down to the USA Govt.
> only difference here is that Telegram isn't USA-owned and doesn't need to bow down to the USA Govt
The U.S. government doesn't like encrypted communications. But it's legally bound, by our Constitution and courts, in a way Paris is not.
Nobody has been fussing about Telegram in a serious way in America.
The U.S. government doesn't like encrypted communications. But it's legally bound, by our Constitution and courts, in a way Paris is not.
Nobody has been fussing about Telegram in a serious way in America.
You don't think USA are remotely involved in this decision to go after Durov? Especially with France being part of the 9-Eyes alliance with USA.
Edit: I added on a mention about the close intelligence relationship between France and USA, for those not in the know.
Edit: I added on a mention about the close intelligence relationship between France and USA, for those not in the know.
> You don't think USA are remotely involved in this decision to go after Durov?
Not really, no. If we wanted to nab him for goodies, we'd use a country without the rule of law.
> with France being part of the 9-Eyes alliance with USA
Telegram is unencrypted by default. The IC has no reason to mess with it.
Also, it takes about a picosecond of studying Gallic-American relations to realise that Paris doesn't take instructions from Washington.
Not really, no. If we wanted to nab him for goodies, we'd use a country without the rule of law.
> with France being part of the 9-Eyes alliance with USA
Telegram is unencrypted by default. The IC has no reason to mess with it.
Also, it takes about a picosecond of studying Gallic-American relations to realise that Paris doesn't take instructions from Washington.
Telegram isn't an interesting target for US govt, as its use in the west is low. US is least likely culprit here.
> The only difference here is that Telegram isn't USA-owned and doesn't need to bow down to the USA Govt.
My understanding, unlike US companies, Telegram hasn't been co-operating with the EU? US companies are not perfect (see the hundreds of millions/billions of fines), but the US companies at least work with authorities.
My understanding, unlike US companies, Telegram hasn't been co-operating with the EU? US companies are not perfect (see the hundreds of millions/billions of fines), but the US companies at least work with authorities.
Wait till you find out and list all the crimes committed using the US dollar.
Because Russia is a bastion of Human rights and freedom....
Can you tell me who is a bastion of Human right and freedom? Personally, I'm struggling to think of any right now.
Countries where the legal system provides a way to discuss, define, and defend human rights qualify, imho. No system is perfect, but those that follow laws pertaining to human rights are generally closer to the ideal. It's about this subtle difference:
USA: "We have no problem with someone saying that the president is an idiot"
Russia: "We have no problem with someone saying that the US president is an idiot"
USA: "We have no problem with someone saying that the president is an idiot"
Russia: "We have no problem with someone saying that the US president is an idiot"
This raking might not be perfect, but it shows which countries are probably more free then others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
EASY. Nordic social democracies, Iceland. I know someone will respond with some examples of them capitulating to big bad America somewhere, but they are absolutely bastions of Human rights and freedoms.
New Zeland is likely up there too, likely Luxembourg/Switzerland and other tax havens. The Baltics are pretty good.
New Zeland is likely up there too, likely Luxembourg/Switzerland and other tax havens. The Baltics are pretty good.
Julian Assange case shows things change when it comes to big politics.
> On 5 February 2016, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had found that the UK and Swedish governments were holding Assange in arbitrary detention by initially keeping him in isolation at Wandsworth prison and because the Swedish prosecutor was conducting its investigation with a "lack of diligence". The Working Group said Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation.[113][114][115] The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
> On 5 February 2016, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had found that the UK and Swedish governments were holding Assange in arbitrary detention by initially keeping him in isolation at Wandsworth prison and because the Swedish prosecutor was conducting its investigation with a "lack of diligence". The Working Group said Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation.[113][114][115] The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
There seems to be a feeling that implies "telegram being unmoderated is a public benefit that outweighs the negative impact."
I'm not understanding the logic there. CSAM not being taken down after a request from law enforcement is an awful thing.
I've also read that you get bombarded by drugs and sex trafficking if you search locally, which is seriously yuck if it's true. Does that really happen?
I'm not understanding the logic there. CSAM not being taken down after a request from law enforcement is an awful thing.
I've also read that you get bombarded by drugs and sex trafficking if you search locally, which is seriously yuck if it's true. Does that really happen?
Searching locally showed me 100% porn/sex worker accounts that appear to be fakes and bots but I didn't inquire.
"Appease the police As A Service". Makes your startup appear comformant to the capricious demands of police , appeases regulators by doing minimal crime detection. If facebook and instagram can get away with it, so can you. Sign up for just 99.99 /mo. We will go to jail for you.
If Snowden is concerned about human rights, why posting on Twitter? Is it really Snowden posting from that account or “Snowden”.
Snowden has been a Russian mouthpiece since he fled and shouldn't be trusted. That said, he did what most of us wouldn't and is just doing what you have to do to survive.
With all that said, this appears to be the correct take based on what information we have today.
With all that said, this appears to be the correct take based on what information we have today.
Exactly. This fact probably sickens him greatly, but it's the reality. He chose Russia over prison. He didn't get freedom with that deal, just a much nicer life (hopefully).
> He chose Russia over prison.
And this says all you need to know about his (lack of) character. If he had the courage of his convictions, he'd return and face the music.
And this says all you need to know about his (lack of) character. If he had the courage of his convictions, he'd return and face the music.
He said he'd do that if given the opportunity to present his case in the court of law. That is not an option the US Intelligence Community would allow.
The US intelligence community does not govern criminal prosecutions of US citizens. That's the job of the FBI, Department of Justice, and the courts.
This is real life we're talking about here, not a Hollywood thriller. The only thing that might ensue after he got arrested on return would be the mother of all interagency pissing contests. Which are not anything new to the Federal government; they happen all the time.
This is real life we're talking about here, not a Hollywood thriller. The only thing that might ensue after he got arrested on return would be the mother of all interagency pissing contests. Which are not anything new to the Federal government; they happen all the time.
You should read Daniel Ellsberg's account of his whistleblowing prosecution back in the Vietnam era and his analysis of how much worse things would be for Snowden should he be fool enough to return before major, major changes are made to the Espionage Act: <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel...>
The FBI is part of the Intelligence Community. The Department of Justice indirectly so as well.
And someone has to charge Snowden and lobbies for stricter legal penalties.
And someone has to charge Snowden and lobbies for stricter legal penalties.
> If he had the courage of his convictions, he'd return and face the music
He probably can't.
He probably can't.
Because he's now in bed with the FSB.
Russia was a very different country in 2013. He was deeply convinced he was doing the right thing, so I totally understand why he doesn't want to face US prosecution. It all comes down to the moral quandary if his whistleblowing was ethical or unethical.
Russia was NOT a very different country. Sorry, but no.
I remember Putin's rise to power - I was 13 at the time. Now I'm 37 and basically a refugee (made a few stupid decisions, now who knows what happen if I decide to go see my parents). Putin's Russia turned into a brutally authoritarian country around 2011 when there were widespread protests condemning heavily falsified municipal elections.
In 2012, we were almost certain that Putin's days are over... in 2018 I remember myself standing in scalding Moscow sun at the Sakharov square at a protest against Telegram being blocked, wearing a Tor T-shirt and handing over flyers and materials telling people how to evade government blocks on the net.
Now, I just don't care. I feel deeply betrayed by my own country and sometimes I wish Russia was nuked out of existence. And yet, this is the country where my parents live, and many of my friends who couldn't leave.
This all is hell on Earth for me -- I have many Ukrainian and Russian friends -- we try to help each other, but currently I'm losing all hope at at least somewhat sane resolution of it all. My friends are equally desperate - many turned refugees and asylum seekers, many without work or language knowledge in foreign countries...
Sometimes I just wish life on Earth never existed at all.
I remember Putin's rise to power - I was 13 at the time. Now I'm 37 and basically a refugee (made a few stupid decisions, now who knows what happen if I decide to go see my parents). Putin's Russia turned into a brutally authoritarian country around 2011 when there were widespread protests condemning heavily falsified municipal elections.
In 2012, we were almost certain that Putin's days are over... in 2018 I remember myself standing in scalding Moscow sun at the Sakharov square at a protest against Telegram being blocked, wearing a Tor T-shirt and handing over flyers and materials telling people how to evade government blocks on the net.
Now, I just don't care. I feel deeply betrayed by my own country and sometimes I wish Russia was nuked out of existence. And yet, this is the country where my parents live, and many of my friends who couldn't leave.
This all is hell on Earth for me -- I have many Ukrainian and Russian friends -- we try to help each other, but currently I'm losing all hope at at least somewhat sane resolution of it all. My friends are equally desperate - many turned refugees and asylum seekers, many without work or language knowledge in foreign countries...
Sometimes I just wish life on Earth never existed at all.
You're probably right, but in 2013 this was not broadly recognized outside of Russia yet.
Many hugs and a lot of strength! It sounds like you're one of the real Russian heroes, even if it doesn't feel like that at all.
Many hugs and a lot of strength! It sounds like you're one of the real Russian heroes, even if it doesn't feel like that at all.
A mouthpiece for the kremlin talking about basic human rights is hilarious
Yeah, Snowden's kind of no longer the authority on any of this anymore:
But more to the point; I find it kind of hilarious how the crypto bros* are UP IN ARMS over this; like weren't y'all supposed to make a blockchain version of this or something? Did y'all forget the whole "decentralization" bit?
*I do the crypto thing a bit myself, but yes, I do mean to talk about a certain type.
But more to the point; I find it kind of hilarious how the crypto bros* are UP IN ARMS over this; like weren't y'all supposed to make a blockchain version of this or something? Did y'all forget the whole "decentralization" bit?
*I do the crypto thing a bit myself, but yes, I do mean to talk about a certain type.
I bet Durov arrest has little to do with any bullshit charges the French government is accusing him of, and more to do with Telegram being used to document the Gaza genocide. Once a platform allows the world see images of children bodies torn by IDF bombs, governments rush to throw any pretense of free speech out of the window.
Absolutely true. Anything to deny the Genocide, while the Zionists themselves watch and mock the destruction.
There is no free speech in Russia anymore. This includes Edward Snowden as long as he's living in Russia. Please just ignore what he's saying until he leaves Russia or Russia becomes a free country again.
The only reason Edward Snowden got asylum in Russia is using him for propaganda.
The only reason Edward Snowden got asylum in Russia is using him for propaganda.
You can't assume there's free speech in the western countries either. Eg. Germany's banning political speach, left and right, even physically attacking and shutting down unconvenient conferences. There's such a thing as foreign intimidation of activists. Countries like India are engaging in politically motivated assasinations in western countries (Canada). Etc.
Just because some activists is in a western country doesn't mean they're free from influence or intimidation.
Just because some activists is in a western country doesn't mean they're free from influence or intimidation.
Somewhere else someone mentioned the mud puddle test for messengers.
I would like to propose a test for how free countries are: take a cart-board and write something critical about the current government, hold it up on a major square in the capital. Count the seconds/minutes/hours until they arrest you.
Now compare results across countries.
I would like to propose a test for how free countries are: take a cart-board and write something critical about the current government, hold it up on a major square in the capital. Count the seconds/minutes/hours until they arrest you.
Now compare results across countries.
Exactly. There were Russian citizens on national German television talking about how much they love Putin and how much they agree with the invasion of Ukraine. They were interviewed while waiting in line to vote in the Russian election, in front of a Russian consulate somewhere in Germany.
They can do stuff like that for days/months/years without getting arrested.
They can do stuff like that for days/months/years without getting arrested.
Can they talk about Palestine? [1]
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
Yes they can talk about Palestine. And yes, they sometimes block foreigners entering the country to participate in political protests.
Then why have they blocked Germans participating? [1].
Because:
"police banned the final two days of the event, citing concern about the potential for hate speech"
The potential? Sounds very Putin-esque if you ask me.
1 - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/police-shut-down-pro-pa...
Because:
"police banned the final two days of the event, citing concern about the potential for hate speech"
The potential? Sounds very Putin-esque if you ask me.
1 - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/police-shut-down-pro-pa...
Or just analyze it in a lot more detail, like this: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/8199/2024/en/
> "A detailed questionnaire was designed by the research team, working with law and policy experts on the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The resulting 143 questions which formed the basis for the research were rooted in the international legal obligations that states have to respect, protect and fulfil the relevant human rights under international treaties to which they are party."
And form nuanced conclusion based on wide array of facts. :)
> "A detailed questionnaire was designed by the research team, working with law and policy experts on the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The resulting 143 questions which formed the basis for the research were rooted in the international legal obligations that states have to respect, protect and fulfil the relevant human rights under international treaties to which they are party."
And form nuanced conclusion based on wide array of facts. :)
Germany's ban on some type of political speech have high bars. It is not easy to shut down right wing publications.
And just to be clear, the bans we have in Germany prohibit spreading lies about some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man. Freedom of speech is a valuable right, but not as valuable as the dignity and life of humans, 50m of which lost their life from 1933-1945.
And just to be clear, the bans we have in Germany prohibit spreading lies about some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man. Freedom of speech is a valuable right, but not as valuable as the dignity and life of humans, 50m of which lost their life from 1933-1945.
I think the citizenship requirement of publicly acknowledging the right of existence of Israel is quite strong on the "not free" political speech, no matter one's private opinion on the matter.
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-citizenship-rule-pledge-t...
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-citizenship-rule-pledge-t...
Well, in Germany we think that being against the right of existence of Israel isn't something that is an opinion that anyone can have.
But how about the US Oath of Allegiance, would you consider it a restriction of "Free Speech" that you have to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? Is it a restriction of free speech that you have to say something if you want to become a citizen?
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
But how about the US Oath of Allegiance, would you consider it a restriction of "Free Speech" that you have to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? Is it a restriction of free speech that you have to say something if you want to become a citizen?
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Israel state as it is doesn't have a right to exist. No state does. Neither does Germany.
State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.)
States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous.
Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.
State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.)
States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous.
Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.
It is not ridiculous for Germany to feel a moral obligation towards those who were affected by Germany's crimes against humanity. We apply the name "Israel" to those and think that it is sufficiently clear.
In fact, I think those moral obligations rank higher than a lot of individual freedoms. Remember that the German constitution puts the dignity of (wo)man above all other rights.
Freedom of Opinion is Article 5 and can be restricted by law and to protect youth and personal honor.
I don't know where you come from but calls for destruction of any country are bad. We might strive for leaders or parties to be exchanged, we might strive for independence of oppressed minorities, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy the country.
In fact, I think those moral obligations rank higher than a lot of individual freedoms. Remember that the German constitution puts the dignity of (wo)man above all other rights.
Freedom of Opinion is Article 5 and can be restricted by law and to protect youth and personal honor.
I don't know where you come from but calls for destruction of any country are bad. We might strive for leaders or parties to be exchanged, we might strive for independence of oppressed minorities, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy the country.
I hate to keep going into this but the legitimacy of the existence of Israel is not just a matter of "it has a right to exist" or "it should be destroyed". I think there's a lot of intermediary things to be said and reasoned about. For example, in its current form the way that the state of Israel is behaving is very similar to what got other countries and their leaders as defendants in the court of human rights.
And Netanjahu will have to face the courts for this. His response to the atrocities of Hamas wasn't proportionate and it wasn't taking civilian lives sufficiently into account (IMHO). Yet, this has nothing to do with Israel's right to continue to exist.
You can't weigh evil against other evil. You got to find another way.
You can't weigh evil against other evil. You got to find another way.
With the risk of splitting the hairs even more, I think that what is commonly meant by "the right of the Israel state to exist" is that the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.
That the Jewish people have a right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel.
And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination.
It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist.
(And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination.
It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist.
(And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
The reason why I left out anything was to avoid my clarification being taken as evidence of some personal bias. Alas I failed.
As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about.
Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about.
Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
Isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist?
I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist.
But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there.
So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take.
At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further).
The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist.
But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there.
So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take.
At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further).
The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
Yes, when a country imposes naturalized future citizens any kind of pledge (especially when it does not apply to local born ones) I think its claims of free speech are tenuous. Frankly I had no idea you had to do that as part of the US citizenship process and it only serves to confirm my biases.
To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?
To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?
Certainly, I find it ridiculous that new immigrants need to give a pledge that existing locals don't have to give. On the other hand, I don't think any of this pertains to Free Speech.
Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
> Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things
Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech.
When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech.
When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
a.) As a refugee you don't have to become a German citizen.
Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech.
b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech.
b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
[deleted]
There seems to be some misquoting of the content of the new Citizenship Test (Einbürgerungstest), possibly out of confusing with a local edict in one of the federal states (Saxony-Anhalt) last year. The new federal test does not require affirmation of any belief about the State of Israel; only "knowledge" of the basic issues of laws regarding Antisemitism in Germany, and of Jewish life and hstory in Germany in general.
Here's a list of the actual questions, from a recent article in Die Welt:
Here's a list of the actual questions, from a recent article in Die Welt:
1. Vor wie vielen Jahren gab es erstmals eine jüdische Gemeinde auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Deutschlands?
a) vor etwa 300 Jahren
b) vor etwa 700 Jahren
c) vor etwa 1150 Jahren
d) vor etwa 1700 Jahren*
2. Wer darf bei den rund 40 jüdischen Makkabi-Sportvereinen Mitglied werden?
a) nur Deutsche
b) nur Israelis
c) nur religiöse Menschen
d) alle Menschen\*
3. Welche Städte haben die größten jüdischen Gemeinden in Deutschland?
a) Berlin und München\*
b) Hamburg und Essen
c) Nürnberg und Stuttgart
d) Worms und Speyer
4. Wie heißt das jüdische Gebetshaus?
a) Basilika
b) Moschee
c) Synagoge\*
d) Kirche
5. Auf welcher rechtlichen Grundlage wurde der Staat Israel gegründet?
a) eine Resolution der Vereinten Nationen\*
b) ein Beschluss des Zionistenkongresses
c) ein Vorschlag der Bundesregierung
d) ein Vorschlag der UdSSR
6. Woraus begründet sich Deutschlands besondere Verantwortung für Israel?
a) aus der Mitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union (EU)
b) aus den nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen\*
c) aus dem Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
d) aus der christlichen Tradition
7. Was ist ein Beispiel für antisemitisches Verhalten?
a) ein jüdisches Fest besuchen
b) die israelische Regierung kritisieren
c) den Holocaust leugnen\*
d) gegen Juden Fußball spielen
8. Woran erinnern die sogenannten Stolpersteine in Deutschland?
a) an berühmte deutsche Politikerinnen und Politiker
b) an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus\*
c) an Verkehrstote
d) an bekannte jüdische Musiker
9. Wie kann jemand, der den Holocaust leugnet, bestraft werden?
a) Kürzung sozialer Leistungen
b) bis zu 100 Sozialstunden
c) gar nicht, Holocaustleugnung ist erlaubt
d) mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe\*
10. Welche Handlung mit Bezug auf den Staat Israel ist in Deutschland verboten?
a) die Politik Israels öffentlich kritisieren
b) das Aufhängen einer israelischen Flagge auf dem Privatgrundstück
c) eine Diskussion über die Politik Israels
d) der öffentliche Aufruf zur Vernichtung Israels\*
TLDR: in Germany you aren't allowed to plan becoming Hitler 2.0 and start the 4th reich. That's basically the limitation of free speech.
andix(2)
Agreed, anything Edward Snowden says right now is just propaganda.
Case in point: https://x.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016
Feb 11, 2022: "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war."
Feb 15th: "So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility."
"If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong."
US / EU intel: 1
Snowden / Russia: 0
Feb 11, 2022: "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war."
Feb 15th: "So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility."
"If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong."
US / EU intel: 1
Snowden / Russia: 0
[deleted]
>The only reason Edward Snowden got asylum in Russia is using him for propaganda
Yeah, good propaganda - if you're an anti-WEF-globalist - F WEF and F the surveillance state
Yeah, good propaganda - if you're an anti-WEF-globalist - F WEF and F the surveillance state
Does every American citizen implicitly endorse what the Biden admin supports right now in Palestine?
> Does every American citizen implicitly endorse what the Biden admin supports right now in Palestine?
I must have missed the pro-Ukrainian protests, lawmakers and debates--online and all over the news--in Russia.
I must have missed the pro-Ukrainian protests, lawmakers and debates--online and all over the news--in Russia.
You must also have missed the constant smearing of protesters as anti Semitic by American public officials, as well as mainstream media alike.
Because I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too.
Because I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too.
> must also have missed the constant smearing of protesters as anti Semitic by American public officials, as well as mainstream media alike
Yes, people disagree. Vehemently. And in public. That's sort of the entire difference.
> I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too
Where these protesters are congregating that isn't inside a prison?
Yes, people disagree. Vehemently. And in public. That's sort of the entire difference.
> I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too
Where these protesters are congregating that isn't inside a prison?
> Yes, people disagree. Vehemently. And in public
Do you think when people as powerful as the U.S. President and all the cable networks smear protesters, do you think the protesters have an equal platform/power to dispute this and therefore it's a debate?
My point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to delegitimize those who disagree with its powerful. That does not mean that there aren't a lot of people who may disagree incl for example Snowden.
Do you think when people as powerful as the U.S. President and all the cable networks smear protesters, do you think the protesters have an equal platform/power to dispute this and therefore it's a debate?
My point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to delegitimize those who disagree with its powerful. That does not mean that there aren't a lot of people who may disagree incl for example Snowden.
> when people as powerful as the U.S. President and all the cable networks smear protesters, do you think the protesters have an equal platform/power to dispute this and therefore it's a debate?
Yes. I'm in New York. Israel/Palestine is enthusiastically debated in public spaces.
And Presidents smear people and causes all the time. The fact that they're complaining about them and not ordering arrests is the salient difference. For a foreign policy issue, the war in Gaza has received a lot of attention, especially considering it's an election year.
> my point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to legitimize those who disagree with its powerful
This is the essence of power. The point is how probable it is that the power succeeds. There is no free speech in Russia. Falsely conflating Snowden's situation with that of the Gaza protesters doesn't hold.
Yes. I'm in New York. Israel/Palestine is enthusiastically debated in public spaces.
And Presidents smear people and causes all the time. The fact that they're complaining about them and not ordering arrests is the salient difference. For a foreign policy issue, the war in Gaza has received a lot of attention, especially considering it's an election year.
> my point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to legitimize those who disagree with its powerful
This is the essence of power. The point is how probable it is that the power succeeds. There is no free speech in Russia. Falsely conflating Snowden's situation with that of the Gaza protesters doesn't hold.
Thousands of Gaza War protesters have been arrested [1]. There were also widespread protests in Russia over Ukraine [2], also shut down with a similarly practiced competence. The entire world is becoming very unfree. People realize this easily enough when looking outside, but when the same things happen internally, people often just don't really recognize it in the same way, probably because of having a comically twisted view of how authoritarianism plays out in practice. With all due respect, I would say that you believing there were no large demonstrations within Russia as being an example of this perspective.
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/college-protest-israel-hamas-war-...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_i...
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/college-protest-israel-hamas-war-...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_i...
> Thousands of Gaza War protesters have been arrested
True, but by local authorities. And in most cases charges were dropped. The total number detained is small, and in most cases I've personally seen, at least in New York, credibly tied to a destructive act that had nothing to do with the protest.
> probably because of having a comically twisted view of how authoritarianism plays out in practice
Absolutely agree. To a sad degree, the current seat of authoritarian politics in America has shifted to Silicon Valley.
> you believing there were no large demonstrations within Russia as being an example of this perspective
I should have clarified without reprisals, but you are correct--the St. Petersburg protests weren't well covered by the international press.
True, but by local authorities. And in most cases charges were dropped. The total number detained is small, and in most cases I've personally seen, at least in New York, credibly tied to a destructive act that had nothing to do with the protest.
> probably because of having a comically twisted view of how authoritarianism plays out in practice
Absolutely agree. To a sad degree, the current seat of authoritarian politics in America has shifted to Silicon Valley.
> you believing there were no large demonstrations within Russia as being an example of this perspective
I should have clarified without reprisals, but you are correct--the St. Petersburg protests weren't well covered by the international press.
The American government is the longest continually existing "regime" in the world. Unlike it, other governments do not conduct (serious) attempts to overthrow it and so it has the most secure institutions. Therefore it can afford to absorb more disagreement with it than other, much shorter-lived regimes can.
This is why there can be a 'debate'.
But as soon as any such debate threatens to actually change something, cops are deployed to beat people up, protesters are arrested and harassed and of course they are constantly smeared in the media.
That is the real difference as far as I can see it.
Don't get me wrong, I am part of the Western world and I'd like it to be true what you say, but why do things like this[1] happen then?
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
This is why there can be a 'debate'.
But as soon as any such debate threatens to actually change something, cops are deployed to beat people up, protesters are arrested and harassed and of course they are constantly smeared in the media.
That is the real difference as far as I can see it.
Don't get me wrong, I am part of the Western world and I'd like it to be true what you say, but why do things like this[1] happen then?
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
> The American government is the longest continually existing "regime" in the world
I'm fairly sure the regime in the UK has lasted longer, technically. You could say that the laws that enabled the current system came into place in 1707 with the Acts of Union, although the modern interpretation took time to come into effect. You could also argue that the supremacy of parliament and thus the beginning of the current regime started in 1688.
The problem with continuous is that things do change over time, and the American system has also evolved since it was conceived.
I'm fairly sure the regime in the UK has lasted longer, technically. You could say that the laws that enabled the current system came into place in 1707 with the Acts of Union, although the modern interpretation took time to come into effect. You could also argue that the supremacy of parliament and thus the beginning of the current regime started in 1688.
The problem with continuous is that things do change over time, and the American system has also evolved since it was conceived.
That's arguing technicalities, and missing the larger point.
Whatever "changes" happen within the US (or the UK) system do not fundamentally uproot the civil servants or the permanent bureaucracy in the West, thus the insinuations remain stable.
Certainly more so than anywhere else in the world. Any changes are minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
Whatever "changes" happen within the US (or the UK) system do not fundamentally uproot the civil servants or the permanent bureaucracy in the West, thus the insinuations remain stable.
Certainly more so than anywhere else in the world. Any changes are minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
There's a pretty easy solution for this: the USA can stop trying to imprison and/or disappear Edward Snowden for reporting on it's crimes against it's citizens. Then he could just come home.
The goal of the USA trapping him there was to get people to disregard his opinions like this. Yes, he can't say the truth regarding the Russia. But he can still say the truth regarding France.
And this is the truth. If this were done by another less powerful country there would be (and has been) outrage.
The goal of the USA trapping him there was to get people to disregard his opinions like this. Yes, he can't say the truth regarding the Russia. But he can still say the truth regarding France.
And this is the truth. If this were done by another less powerful country there would be (and has been) outrage.
He didn't have to escape to Russia with a bunch of laptops filled with classified documents, the majority of which he's never made public. If he cares so much about exposing the US government, he should stand up for his beliefs. Yes, it might mean arrest and prison. If he's not ready for this, he shouldn't get involved. Your convictions mean nothing if you are not ready suffer for them.
It is not cool to suggest someone goes to jail for many years to prove something while you will be enjoying an online conversation in safety.
It would likely also be a death sentence, like with Navalny in Russia.
> If he cares so much about exposing the US government, he should stand up for his beliefs.
You should read what Daniel Ellsberg had to say about Snowden's decision to flee the country. Things have changed dramatically since Vietnam:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel...>
> He didn't have to escape to Russia...
The intent was never to stay in Russia. Snowden's passport was revoked by the US State Department while he was in transit from Hong Kong to -IIRC- Ecuador. His trip had him stop in Russia, which would not let him leave because his passport was no longer valid.
<https://apnews.com/article/82f87def2ddc4abfba271420f4e81ddf>
You should read what Daniel Ellsberg had to say about Snowden's decision to flee the country. Things have changed dramatically since Vietnam:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel...>
> He didn't have to escape to Russia...
The intent was never to stay in Russia. Snowden's passport was revoked by the US State Department while he was in transit from Hong Kong to -IIRC- Ecuador. His trip had him stop in Russia, which would not let him leave because his passport was no longer valid.
<https://apnews.com/article/82f87def2ddc4abfba271420f4e81ddf>
Actually he did, once the NSA prevented him from fleeing to where he was hoping to have political asylum and trapped him in Russia.
He didn't have to escape to Russia with a bunch of laptops filled with classified documents,
Snowden says gave everything he had to the journalists he met with in HK, and destroyed all copies in his possession before attempting to transit through Moscow.
If your belief is that he did otherwise -- you'll have to explain how you "know" this to be the case.
Snowden says gave everything he had to the journalists he met with in HK, and destroyed all copies in his possession before attempting to transit through Moscow.
If your belief is that he did otherwise -- you'll have to explain how you "know" this to be the case.
I suppose it’s my belief that he gave everything he got to FSB vs your belief that he’s telling the truth and he didn’t. I base my belief on the first hand knowledge of how Russia works, and the fact that it held all the cards and Snowden held none once he stepped on Russia’s soil - and probably before.
Okay, speculation then.
BTW I never said that I believed he was telling the truth.
But that's very different from pretending to simply "know" that he wasn't.
BTW I never said that I believed he was telling the truth.
But that's very different from pretending to simply "know" that he wasn't.
> If he cares so much about exposing the US government, he should stand up for his beliefs
He did, and took a path that allowed him not to be disappeared, suddenly become suicidal or fatally ill with weird symptoms.
He did, and took a path that allowed him not to be disappeared, suddenly become suicidal or fatally ill with weird symptoms.
It might've been a big mistake on his side, not understanding what kind of country Russia was. I think a lot of Americans don't understand how different it is in autocratic countries. They complain about the lack of free speech in the US, without understanding what this actually means.
As I understand, he is not under arrest in Russia; he now has a citizenship and (probably) can travel without US being able to cancel his Russian passport.
Yes, he's not under arrest right now, probably. But this can change any minute if he comes close to a border or an airport.
He didn't "escape to Russia", this is a very disingenuous, and plain wrong to say. It's ridiculous having to explain this after 11 years on HN, which is supposed to be a techie place for intelligent people.
Either you've been hugely mislead by anti Snowden people, or you are willfully ignorant, or worse.
Either you've been hugely mislead by anti Snowden people, or you are willfully ignorant, or worse.
A government contractor working on classified systems typically signs a strict NDA and is quite likely told in no uncertain terms what will happen when those terms are broken. He did it knowingly and willingly. What did he expect? If he was doing it for a higher cause, he must also had known that people will possibly die if what he passed on to the Russians contained personal information. If he can live with the deadly consequences of his own actions, he must be OK with a potentially violent end to his own life.
He might be signing an NDA under belief that government strictly obeys the law. You cannot use an NDA to prevent someone from reporting law violations.
Oh, but the government does obey the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794 There is no provision for reporting law violations or moral judgement of the US government's actions.
Russia will never let him go. They will point a gun at him and let him explain on camera how great Russia is and why he's never going to leave.
He became an essential part of their propaganda, he doesn't even have to do it in person, his X account is enough.
He became an essential part of their propaganda, he doesn't even have to do it in person, his X account is enough.
Never say never. They will gladly drop him off on the border with Poland and tell the US to pick him up once they have no use for him. The only reason they won't do it is to assure spies working for them that they will always be "taken care of" by Russia.
If they don't have any use for him anymore, he will fall out of a window or get a heart attack.
its, not it's
[deleted]
Running a platform that hosts child porn is a basic human right? Stop spreading propaganda comrade Snowden.
There is the right way and the wrong way.
Wrong way: Telegram keeps records and refuses to cooperate. Telegram faces consequences.
Right way: Signal cooperates. They give two Unix timestamps. One for when the account was created and the date the account last connected to the Signal service. https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/ See also: https://signal.org/bigbrother/