French prosecutors say Telegram CEO freed from custody, will appear in court(apnews.com)
apnews.com
French prosecutors say Telegram CEO freed from custody, will appear in court
https://apnews.com/article/france-telegram-pavel-durov-arrest-6e213d227458f330ed16e7fe221a696c
134 comments
OK, you're right. I looked it.
In the USA police can generally hold someone for 24-48hours before actual charges are filed (it takes a minute to generate an indictment), allowing them to investigate and interrogate.
Then, if an indictment is filed a judge makes a decision on pre-trial confinement until trial. In France there is a general four month limit on pre-trial confinement before it has to be heavily justified.
In the USA police can generally hold someone for 24-48hours before actual charges are filed (it takes a minute to generate an indictment), allowing them to investigate and interrogate.
Then, if an indictment is filed a judge makes a decision on pre-trial confinement until trial. In France there is a general four month limit on pre-trial confinement before it has to be heavily justified.
I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand the process is closer to what you mention for the US.
We have "garde à vue" and "détention provisoire":
- "Garde a vue" is similar to being in police custody and it's limited to 24-48 hours normally, but there is longer duration for specific crime, the maximum being 6 days for terrorism investigations [0].
- Then, a judge can decide that the defendant should stay in "détention provisoire" before a trial. It doesn't have a duration limit but should be motivated and can be re-examined multiple time [1].
0: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%A0_vue_en_droit_fran... 1: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tention_provisoire_en_F...
We have "garde à vue" and "détention provisoire":
- "Garde a vue" is similar to being in police custody and it's limited to 24-48 hours normally, but there is longer duration for specific crime, the maximum being 6 days for terrorism investigations [0].
- Then, a judge can decide that the defendant should stay in "détention provisoire" before a trial. It doesn't have a duration limit but should be motivated and can be re-examined multiple time [1].
0: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garde_%C3%A0_vue_en_droit_fran... 1: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tention_provisoire_en_F...
Folks, he is free from the initial custody, but was brought to court today, which will decide on further steps.
The AP article is rambling and disappointing, literally the DailyMail has a more coherent coverage:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13788495/telegram-f...
The AP article is rambling and disappointing, literally the DailyMail has a more coherent coverage:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13788495/telegram-f...
This should be top comment.
This is like in the USA where police can generally hold someone for 24-48hours before actual charges are filed (it takes a minute to generate an indictment), allowing them to investigate and interrogate.
Then, if an indictment is filed a judge makes a decision on pre-trial confinement until trial. In France there is a general four month limit on pre-trial confinement before it has to be heavily justified.
Durov is a high flight risk (money, private jet, foreign citizenship), so the judge will have to factor that in. IF there is an indictment.
This is like in the USA where police can generally hold someone for 24-48hours before actual charges are filed (it takes a minute to generate an indictment), allowing them to investigate and interrogate.
Then, if an indictment is filed a judge makes a decision on pre-trial confinement until trial. In France there is a general four month limit on pre-trial confinement before it has to be heavily justified.
Durov is a high flight risk (money, private jet, foreign citizenship), so the judge will have to factor that in. IF there is an indictment.
If I'm understanding the article, the headline for it is terrible, because he is still absolutely detained, just the type of detention has changed from "police custody" to "enforced court appearance", which may well put him in a different type of legal detention ... so in no way is he "freed".
Also:
> The Kremlin said ... 'very serious' and warned ...
Do any NATO members take Kremlin warnings seriously any more? It seems clear that the Russians will already do anything they think they can get away with (cf Skripal)
Also:
> The Kremlin said ... 'very serious' and warned ...
Do any NATO members take Kremlin warnings seriously any more? It seems clear that the Russians will already do anything they think they can get away with (cf Skripal)
People are up in arms about this and the "stifling of free speech," but it seems like there is only one sentence in this article that really matters:
> "Telegram refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law."
Am I the only one who thinks that if you are a global company operating in a country and you refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena in that country, no one should be surprised when you get arrested? If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story. But no one has stated or implied that anywhere I have seen.
> "Telegram refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law."
Am I the only one who thinks that if you are a global company operating in a country and you refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena in that country, no one should be surprised when you get arrested? If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story. But no one has stated or implied that anywhere I have seen.
> no one should be surprised when you get arrested?
That a government would arrest a CEO in an effort to solve this problem shows that there's more going on than a simple legal dispute.
> If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story.
France has proven capable of blocking services. They can't block this if it's so damaging to the French republic?
That a government would arrest a CEO in an effort to solve this problem shows that there's more going on than a simple legal dispute.
> If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story.
France has proven capable of blocking services. They can't block this if it's so damaging to the French republic?
> France has proven capable of blocking services. They can't block this if it's so damaging to the French republic?
If their logging/encryption violate the law, I would expect them to be removed from the app store before arresting the CEO. So I think we can assume this is not the case or the company has failed to prove this is the case, which makes my original point more valid. Telegram itself isn't what the French government has a problem with it, it is specific behaviors of the executive team.
*Edited to clarify my argument.
If their logging/encryption violate the law, I would expect them to be removed from the app store before arresting the CEO. So I think we can assume this is not the case or the company has failed to prove this is the case, which makes my original point more valid. Telegram itself isn't what the French government has a problem with it, it is specific behaviors of the executive team.
*Edited to clarify my argument.
> which makes my point more valid.
Your assumptions cannot make your point more valid. The difference between your assumptions and our total lack of information is what gives me pause, personally.
> it is specific behaviors of the executive team.
Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives.
Your assumptions cannot make your point more valid. The difference between your assumptions and our total lack of information is what gives me pause, personally.
> it is specific behaviors of the executive team.
Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives.
> Which tells me they're not interested in protecting French citizens but rather punishing inconvenient executives.
This assumption, given our total lack of information, gives me pause. It is not (and should not be) unusual to arrest an executive for willful violation of local laws by the company they own and lead.
I think we are at an impasse, we both are going to build this off of a different set of assumptions and priors which make our conclusions incompatible without more information. Fortunately, France cannot make him disappear indefinitely without the information becoming public enough for us to draw our own, more informed conclusions.
This assumption, given our total lack of information, gives me pause. It is not (and should not be) unusual to arrest an executive for willful violation of local laws by the company they own and lead.
I think we are at an impasse, we both are going to build this off of a different set of assumptions and priors which make our conclusions incompatible without more information. Fortunately, France cannot make him disappear indefinitely without the information becoming public enough for us to draw our own, more informed conclusions.
I assume on behalf of citizens against government as a matter of policy. If you've not been targeted by the government before you might not understand this position. The government has all the advantages, massive resources, sweeping extralegal powers and and the end of the day they've seemingly abandoned all of that to target a CEO on a layover.
I don't personally like this guy or his company. I'm sure there's something wrong with how they are operating. I still cannot give the French or any other government the benefit of the doubt here.
I don't personally like this guy or his company. I'm sure there's something wrong with how they are operating. I still cannot give the French or any other government the benefit of the doubt here.
Durov is the founder and owner as well as CEO.
If there's criminality on the platform that affects the _La France_, disrupting access to it for French users not willing to use a VPN doesn't necessarily stop the criminality
> doesn't necessarily stop the criminality
The CEO was arrested. Has the criminality /now/ stopped? If he goes to jail does that stop it?
> for French users
Who are also committing crimes.
The CEO was arrested. Has the criminality /now/ stopped? If he goes to jail does that stop it?
> for French users
Who are also committing crimes.
> Has the criminality /now/ stopped
I'd bet an internet dollar that Telegram HQ is actively in a panic making sure they can start responding to French take-down notices
I'd bet an internet dollar that Telegram HQ is actively in a panic making sure they can start responding to French take-down notices
If the app is not country compliant, France can just ask the app stores to remove it from their country apps selection.
But some countries want to have their cake and eat it too.
But some countries want to have their cake and eat it too.
Removing/blocking apps deprives users who benefit from these apps. That's the actual freedom violation but for some reason a lot of people are ready to accept it as solution. It's very sad actually.
Just lock up the people responsible for the problems, why would you deprive people from the products the use?
A future I want to live is a future where offenders get punished, not a future where I'm dissolved of using products that offenders used to offend.
Just lock up the people responsible for the problems, why would you deprive people from the products the use?
A future I want to live is a future where offenders get punished, not a future where I'm dissolved of using products that offenders used to offend.
The practical effect of locking up "the people responsible" though (if there's any actual guilt), at least in this case, would deprive people of the product: Durov is the key person for basically all things re Telegram, so his not being available to take care of said things would lead to its eventual death.
Maybe, maybe not? If it happens that Durov ends in prison for a long time I imagine that there would be interest to take over the product since its actually a good and successful one.
Take it over how when it's very possible that only Durov has access to some of the more important keys?
> A future I want to live is a future where offenders get punished, not a future where I'm dissolved of using products that offenders used to offend.
So with that said, you're actually against the arrest of Pavel Durov as I understand it? As he's being arrested for not committing any crimes, but for not giving information about the people who are committing the actual crimes.
So with that said, you're actually against the arrest of Pavel Durov as I understand it? As he's being arrested for not committing any crimes, but for not giving information about the people who are committing the actual crimes.
I'm not against or for his arrest categorically. If his actions caused harm, he should be punished but I don't know if his actions caused harm. Regardless, unless the app itself does something nefarious, like exfiltrating user data on the client side, it should not be banned.
Aiding and abetting are crimes.
Sure, but then don't blame the app, because exactly as the gp stated: you cannot have the cake and eat it too.
I mean, I don't want it to sound simplistic. Situation is kinda novel (meaning, it wasn't possible 200 years ago). Basically every POV in this entire discussion makes sense to me. Like, it absolutely makes sense for a government to be hostile to somebody who doesn't comply with their requests, and given that in this situation that somebody happens to be a french citizen... well, it's almost like he was asking for it.
But regardless of what reasoning I could provide in behalf of the opposing side, my personal desire is that all governments and all courts to go fuck themself when it is about providing users data. I truly make no exceptions for that, it doesn't make me sympathetic if a user allegedly distributes child porn in a private conversation, or if he is a terrorist and disclosed a location of a nuclear bomb to his partner. I mean it. Because the exceptions where you could convince me it's necessary are very-very rare, and courts' ability to abuse it if there can be any exceptions at all is infinite. And it should be obvious that I don't trust any courts or government to do the right thing, and it truly scares me (but I accept it as a fact, because if all people would become enlightened it probably would truly mean total chaos) that so many people do.
But, of course, again, the only way to truly ensure that is non-backdoored E2EE, and it's not even clear if such a thing even exists...
I mean, I don't want it to sound simplistic. Situation is kinda novel (meaning, it wasn't possible 200 years ago). Basically every POV in this entire discussion makes sense to me. Like, it absolutely makes sense for a government to be hostile to somebody who doesn't comply with their requests, and given that in this situation that somebody happens to be a french citizen... well, it's almost like he was asking for it.
But regardless of what reasoning I could provide in behalf of the opposing side, my personal desire is that all governments and all courts to go fuck themself when it is about providing users data. I truly make no exceptions for that, it doesn't make me sympathetic if a user allegedly distributes child porn in a private conversation, or if he is a terrorist and disclosed a location of a nuclear bomb to his partner. I mean it. Because the exceptions where you could convince me it's necessary are very-very rare, and courts' ability to abuse it if there can be any exceptions at all is infinite. And it should be obvious that I don't trust any courts or government to do the right thing, and it truly scares me (but I accept it as a fact, because if all people would become enlightened it probably would truly mean total chaos) that so many people do.
But, of course, again, the only way to truly ensure that is non-backdoored E2EE, and it's not even clear if such a thing even exists...
Right, my position is that being a revolutionary or a renegade is not a right, doesn't have to be safe, it doesn't have to be easy and if someone chooses to do it they should assume the associated risks with it as they are bound to collect the rewards.
The French government has a certain ruleset and powers and an agenda, if He is going to take on the French government its fine by me its just that the hazard associated with that is expected. I don't have a beef it this, unless there's a spying for Russia stuff. Then I would be like "lock down this hack, take away his fortune to pay for the damages" but I still wouldn't advocate for blocking Telegram.
The French government has a certain ruleset and powers and an agenda, if He is going to take on the French government its fine by me its just that the hazard associated with that is expected. I don't have a beef it this, unless there's a spying for Russia stuff. Then I would be like "lock down this hack, take away his fortune to pay for the damages" but I still wouldn't advocate for blocking Telegram.
> But regardless of what reasoning I could provide in behalf of the opposing side, my personal desire is that all governments and all courts to go fuck themself when it is about providing users data. I truly make no exceptions for that, it doesn't make me sympathetic if a user allegedly distributes child porn in a private conversation, or if he is a terrorist and disclosed a location of a nuclear bomb to his partner. I mean it.
This is an interesting stance to me, because throughout modern history I'm not aware of any budiness/entity that did not have an obligation to turn over information as a result of a court order other than information under attorney client privilege. Encrypted data is actually the odd one out, other than not collecting information in the first place, in that most things can be compelled.
The only time I have an issue with the courts having power to order someone to hand over information is when those orders are done secretly. There must be accountability.
This is an interesting stance to me, because throughout modern history I'm not aware of any budiness/entity that did not have an obligation to turn over information as a result of a court order other than information under attorney client privilege. Encrypted data is actually the odd one out, other than not collecting information in the first place, in that most things can be compelled.
The only time I have an issue with the courts having power to order someone to hand over information is when those orders are done secretly. There must be accountability.
Why would France do that instead of investigating a French citizen within its jurisdiction?
It's certainly possible that the arrest is at the same time unsurprising and stifling free speech. Is one supposed to exclude the other?
People make these equivalences to other social media platforms, but alas it is the only social media I use where I frequently see stuff like IS recruitment videos in larger groups. That is, professionally produced videos in my local language. It's always the same videos as well, so you'd think they at least ban known bad files by hash or something, but nope, they get removed manually by the group's mods hours later.
Wow, I've never heard anything like that before (never used TG). Do you mind sharing what language that is? (or language family, ie. Germanic, Semitic, Sinitic etc.) Also, IIRC, the Taliban has used WhatsApp in official capacities.[0] Obviously IS and Taliban are not nearly the same, just thought it was worth mentioning. WhatsApp does not have the same public groups as TG so I guess you would have to already be in an IS adjacent WhatsApp group to get videos from them.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/world/asia/taliban-whatsa...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/world/asia/taliban-whatsa...
Telegram is the best way to get on the ground news or content, and what people in the area think, only filtered by that chat’s moderators which is basically limited to interpersonal problems
Israel and IDF content is over there
Palestinian and Hamas content is over there
Ukrainian
Russian
All in separate feeds that you can just switch between
Its been very useful for me as there is so much jargon and slang in other languages that their respective media (if said media company even exists) would never use, and with LLM’s translating I can ask and learn the context of those slang words and find more content from actual humans
Whats irrelevant is how that helps the French case. Appeals to authority with authorities none of us would actually respect? We dont even know enough about the case, its one thing to arrest the CEO for a platform, its another to arrest an individual for involvement in something salacious and we dont know at all yet.
Israel and IDF content is over there
Palestinian and Hamas content is over there
Ukrainian
Russian
All in separate feeds that you can just switch between
Its been very useful for me as there is so much jargon and slang in other languages that their respective media (if said media company even exists) would never use, and with LLM’s translating I can ask and learn the context of those slang words and find more content from actual humans
Whats irrelevant is how that helps the French case. Appeals to authority with authorities none of us would actually respect? We dont even know enough about the case, its one thing to arrest the CEO for a platform, its another to arrest an individual for involvement in something salacious and we dont know at all yet.
When I search by „kaufen“ (buy in German), half of the results I get is related to stolen credit cards. Just now it took me two minutes to find several accounts selling drugs without prior knowledge how to do it. This sounds pretty much like absence of moderation.
German
The one I had in mind is a city-wide chat group with more than 2000 members in which people share stuff they want to give away or sell for cheap.
The one I had in mind is a city-wide chat group with more than 2000 members in which people share stuff they want to give away or sell for cheap.
Some credit reports that Durov travelled to Russia more than 60 times between 2014 and 2021. https://x.com/YaroslavAzhnyuk/status/1828498176854385111
Honest question for this group: Does anyone actually believe Telegram has any sort of privacy? Like, I assume all your TG data is available to the Kremlin in the same way that all your TikTok data is available to the CCP.
Honest question for this group: Does anyone actually believe Telegram has any sort of privacy? Like, I assume all your TG data is available to the Kremlin in the same way that all your TikTok data is available to the CCP.
I can’t comment on any specifics of his arrest, but it sure indicates they got the right person if Russian and Saudi governments start talking about freedoms and injustice.
That is not certain. Russia has to say something and is exploiting the situation for propaganda. If it turns out that he was actually cooperating with the CIA, they'd happily give him the polonium treatment and claim France did it.
This. They utilize the firehose of falsehood method of communication. Talking points on every possible thing in all directions.
IIRC he was basically kicked out of Russia for not censoring VK. Things could have changed but I don't think visits to Russia (where he has friends and family) is necessarily proof that he is giving data to Russia. Also, Telegram seems to have been banned in Russia at times, although I do not know the specific details.
> Also, Telegram seems to have been banned in Russia at times, although I do not know the specific details.
Russia tried a bunch of times to block Russia (since it got banned for not cooperating with the government) but never successfully, seems Telegran anti-censorship methods works well enough. Eventually Russia relented and undid the ban and block. But I don't think Telegram actually stopped working in Russia at any point.
Russia tried a bunch of times to block Russia (since it got banned for not cooperating with the government) but never successfully, seems Telegran anti-censorship methods works well enough. Eventually Russia relented and undid the ban and block. But I don't think Telegram actually stopped working in Russia at any point.
Some of the specific details :
https://istories.media/en/news/2024/08/27/pavel-durov-has-vi...
https://istories.media/en/news/2024/08/27/pavel-durov-has-vi...
> Honest question for this group: Does anyone actually believe Telegram has any sort of privacy?
Yes.
Russian authorities obviously have access. But they only use this access sparingly. If you're not personally targeted by the FSB, you're OK, even Russian regular police doesn't have access to it.
Yes.
Russian authorities obviously have access. But they only use this access sparingly. If you're not personally targeted by the FSB, you're OK, even Russian regular police doesn't have access to it.
I assume that the kremlin has more knowledge of the drug trade in my city than the local police
His brother Nikolai who is a co-founder of Telegram and who is said to have developed the encryption protocol in Telegram lives in Russia according to some sources. His LinkedIn page indicates California as residence, however.
BTW, Nikolai's wiki page states he won three gold medals at an International Mathematics Olympiad and once a gold International Olympiad in Informatics as well as a gold medal in the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest. I'd say he is well qualified to design crypto algos if he put his mind to it.
BTW, Nikolai's wiki page states he won three gold medals at an International Mathematics Olympiad and once a gold International Olympiad in Informatics as well as a gold medal in the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest. I'd say he is well qualified to design crypto algos if he put his mind to it.
Why wouldn't he make it truly secure by hardening the most used features?
They don't even seem to work on it. There is this optional encryption, but nobody seems to care about it. Simultaneously, they present themselves as safe and secure.
He might be a genius.
He might also be an evil genius.
They don't even seem to work on it. There is this optional encryption, but nobody seems to care about it. Simultaneously, they present themselves as safe and secure.
He might be a genius.
He might also be an evil genius.
> Why wouldn't he make it truly secure by hardening the most used features?
E2E encryption comes with tradeoffs, it's not something you tack on to a protocol and not having to change a bunch of other stuff.
I think one of the main selling point of Telegram is the public channels/huge groups where you can openly communicate with people, and tacking E2E encryption into those would probably involve a ton of work, not really sure how it would work (or what benefit it would bring)
E2E encryption comes with tradeoffs, it's not something you tack on to a protocol and not having to change a bunch of other stuff.
I think one of the main selling point of Telegram is the public channels/huge groups where you can openly communicate with people, and tacking E2E encryption into those would probably involve a ton of work, not really sure how it would work (or what benefit it would bring)
> I think one of the main selling point of Telegram is the public channels/huge groups where you can openly communicate with people,
There is nothing wrong with that. But why pretend to be secure and use that as a marketing claim?
There is nothing wrong with that. But why pretend to be secure and use that as a marketing claim?
Because most people want to have shared history, including in groups, including before they were added. And they also want to be able to recover a lost password, and not loose all their data if they forget it. And they want these things much more than protection from intelligence agencies. And may be I'm not a great at crypto, but I can't figure out a way of having all these features and still have end-to-end encryption.
So why market it as secure in the first place? If people don't care, you wouldn't have to also.
I don't think people don't care. From all those discussions in the recent days, you can see a wide range of different people who actually think it is secure.
I don't think people don't care. From all those discussions in the recent days, you can see a wide range of different people who actually think it is secure.
Politico claims to have (exclusively) seen a French administrative document that narrows the focus to a single case where Telegram did not respond to legal request for user information. Copied from the article, here are a few key points:
> The arrest warrants were issued after the messaging platform gave "no answer" to an earlier judicial request to identify a Telegram user, according to the document, which was shared with POLITICO by a person directly involved in the case.
> Warrants for Pavel and his brother Nikolai, the platform’s co-founder, were issued on March 25 over charges including “complicity in possessing, distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in an organized group.”
> The warrants were issued after an undercover investigation into Telegram led by the cybercrime branch of the Paris prosecutor's office, during which a suspect discussed luring underaged girls into sending "self-produced child pornography," and then threatening to release it on social media.
> The suspect also told the investigators he had raped a young child, according to the document. Telegram did not respond to the French authorities’ request to identify the suspect.
> There’s no suggestion either of the Durov brothers were directly involved in any of the illegal activities identified by the investigation.
-https://www.politico.eu/article/exclusive-telegram-ceo-broth...
> The arrest warrants were issued after the messaging platform gave "no answer" to an earlier judicial request to identify a Telegram user, according to the document, which was shared with POLITICO by a person directly involved in the case.
> Warrants for Pavel and his brother Nikolai, the platform’s co-founder, were issued on March 25 over charges including “complicity in possessing, distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in an organized group.”
> The warrants were issued after an undercover investigation into Telegram led by the cybercrime branch of the Paris prosecutor's office, during which a suspect discussed luring underaged girls into sending "self-produced child pornography," and then threatening to release it on social media.
> The suspect also told the investigators he had raped a young child, according to the document. Telegram did not respond to the French authorities’ request to identify the suspect.
> There’s no suggestion either of the Durov brothers were directly involved in any of the illegal activities identified by the investigation.
-https://www.politico.eu/article/exclusive-telegram-ceo-broth...
This is extremely interesting.
At first people expected him to be jailed, because he obviously has means to leave France and never get caught again, but then analysts pointed out that he knew there was a warrant in France to get him and that he decided to land in France anyway, so they raised the question that maybe he came voluntarily in order to strike a deal with French authorities.
The fact that he's now free from custody sounds like this analysis was likely the right one.
At first people expected him to be jailed, because he obviously has means to leave France and never get caught again, but then analysts pointed out that he knew there was a warrant in France to get him and that he decided to land in France anyway, so they raised the question that maybe he came voluntarily in order to strike a deal with French authorities.
The fact that he's now free from custody sounds like this analysis was likely the right one.
> The fact that he's now free from custody sounds like this analysis was likely the right one.
Or they released him because they're required to by law? Normally they need to release you after 24h, but in some cases of organized crime or terrorism, they can extend it to 72+h.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
Or they released him because they're required to by law? Normally they need to release you after 24h, but in some cases of organized crime or terrorism, they can extend it to 72+h.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
Police must release you but the judge charged of leading the case can chose to jail you in a “preventive” fashion (It's literally called «détention préventive») if your odds of hiding or leaving the country are considered too high.
You can generally avoid détention préventive if you are able to provide good garanties de re-présentation, i.e., if you can convince the judge that even if they release you, you will show up to court when asked to. These documents are generally proof of insertion in active life (having a stable job, family, etc.) that should prevent you from disappearing (e.g., in order not to lose your job). I don't know what those would be in this case. But then again, the justice system is never exactly the same for people in positions of power, as Durov is.
I mean this is also how American bail generally works. Durov doesn't have a lot of permanent residency-style connection to France, and also has a lot of money though, so has the motive and means to flee.
Not if there is a risk that you will run away. That jail time shortens a potential prison sentence.
The best thing that could happen to France would be for him to run away.
They want Telegram not him.
They want Telegram not him.
> They want Telegram not him.
They actually want him to comply with the French law (a country which he is a citizen of) and timely remove the illegal content that he's been made aware of.
If all Telegram chats were e2e encrypted, he'd have much more plausible deniability. But they aren't, so he is required by law (as a French citizen) to remove the offending content.
The best thing he can do is stay, serve his sentence/pay his fine, and improve Telegram to have e2e encryption by default (or better yet, mandatory), and focus on e2e encryption for group chats.
His resistance to do that over the years, along with his insistence that somehow Telegram is super secure make me wonder if he's not already been compromised.
They actually want him to comply with the French law (a country which he is a citizen of) and timely remove the illegal content that he's been made aware of.
If all Telegram chats were e2e encrypted, he'd have much more plausible deniability. But they aren't, so he is required by law (as a French citizen) to remove the offending content.
The best thing he can do is stay, serve his sentence/pay his fine, and improve Telegram to have e2e encryption by default (or better yet, mandatory), and focus on e2e encryption for group chats.
His resistance to do that over the years, along with his insistence that somehow Telegram is super secure make me wonder if he's not already been compromised.
> The best thing he can do is stay, serve his sentence/pay his fine, and improve Telegram to have e2e encryption by default (or better yet, mandatory)
That would compromise the feature of open-to-everybody groups right? Right now I can download telegram on my phone, do a quick search and view an open group where local drug dealers post their wares (with pictures), weapons are being sold illegaly, etc. I always thought this was the "illegal content" they were referring to
That would compromise the feature of open-to-everybody groups right? Right now I can download telegram on my phone, do a quick search and view an open group where local drug dealers post their wares (with pictures), weapons are being sold illegaly, etc. I always thought this was the "illegal content" they were referring to
> They actually want him to comply with the French law (a country which he is a citizen of) and timely remove the illegal content that he's been made aware of.
Do you have a confirmation for that or this is just your guess? Maybe they want access to all Telegram messages.
Do you have a confirmation for that or this is just your guess? Maybe they want access to all Telegram messages.
> Do you have a confirmation for that or this is just your guess
The allegations are public, and that's what the allegations state. I can't and don't want to speculate on the "true" motives of the French authorities. Al Capone was also initially held only on taxes charges.
> The investigation concerns crimes related to illicit transactions, child sexual abuse, fraud and the refusal to communicate information to authorities. The arrest warrant was issued by OFMIN, a French child protection agency, the group’s secretary general said in a post on LinkedIn.
https://www.tf1info.fr/justice-faits-divers/info-tf1-lci-le-...
And some investigative journalism on the type of illegal activities going on in Telegram.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1828526705306411410.html
I am all for privacy of communication, but due to Telegram's insistence of not encrypting everything, this is easy to see/verify by authorities, and issue a takedown notice.
> Maybe they want access to all Telegram messages.
And maybe not. Do you have proof that they want that, or we are going to be speculating here? Cause, as I said, the arrest warrant is public and the allegations are public. I'd prefer not to speculate and focus on the facts.
P.S
If we are going to speculate here, my feeling is that the French authorities found that Telegram is a Russian held backdoor/honeypot or want to disrupt Russian war communications. They need some time to with Durov in custody, so they arrest him on charges they can arrest him on: failing to remove illegal content all the while letting Meta, X, and Rumble and others get away with the same.
The allegations are public, and that's what the allegations state. I can't and don't want to speculate on the "true" motives of the French authorities. Al Capone was also initially held only on taxes charges.
> The investigation concerns crimes related to illicit transactions, child sexual abuse, fraud and the refusal to communicate information to authorities. The arrest warrant was issued by OFMIN, a French child protection agency, the group’s secretary general said in a post on LinkedIn.
https://www.tf1info.fr/justice-faits-divers/info-tf1-lci-le-...
And some investigative journalism on the type of illegal activities going on in Telegram.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1828526705306411410.html
I am all for privacy of communication, but due to Telegram's insistence of not encrypting everything, this is easy to see/verify by authorities, and issue a takedown notice.
> Maybe they want access to all Telegram messages.
And maybe not. Do you have proof that they want that, or we are going to be speculating here? Cause, as I said, the arrest warrant is public and the allegations are public. I'd prefer not to speculate and focus on the facts.
P.S
If we are going to speculate here, my feeling is that the French authorities found that Telegram is a Russian held backdoor/honeypot or want to disrupt Russian war communications. They need some time to with Durov in custody, so they arrest him on charges they can arrest him on: failing to remove illegal content all the while letting Meta, X, and Rumble and others get away with the same.
> he knew there was a warrant in France to get him
Do you have a reference for this claim? I've read this here or there, but always without any evidence. Was the arrest warrant public before he decided to land in France?
Do you have a reference for this claim? I've read this here or there, but always without any evidence. Was the arrest warrant public before he decided to land in France?
I got this from the Twitter of Gerard Araud, former French ambassador in the US who usually posts informed tweets.
Regardless of what did or did not happen the whole thing smells to high heaven. This is analogous to when authorities take your device out of your sight. It must be considered compromised after that.
If that's the case, staying in custody may have been the wiser choice.
He's better protected by French secret services than in jail, especially if the threat is FSB…
If that were the case, why did they make such a fuss in the media about arresting him though? If they wanted to make a deal with him that wouldn't really be helpful.
Personally I think the legal basis for his arrest is just so thin that bail was granted. After all he is not personally responsible. The buck stops with him, sure but he didn't personally partake in any of the alleged activity on telegram.
Keeping a person in custody is a very heavy measure that a judge won't grant lightly.
Personally I think the legal basis for his arrest is just so thin that bail was granted. After all he is not personally responsible. The buck stops with him, sure but he didn't personally partake in any of the alleged activity on telegram.
Keeping a person in custody is a very heavy measure that a judge won't grant lightly.
The media made a lot of fuss about the arrest, not the French government.
So far as I can tell the French didn't say much of anything, which is why there is so much confusion about what happened.
So far as I can tell the French didn't say much of anything, which is why there is so much confusion about what happened.
> The buck stops with him, sure but he didn't personally partake in any of the alleged activity on telegram.
I thought he was arrested for not complying with search/trace/takedown warrants against people who were (possibly) doing illegal activity. If that is true he presumably would be responsible.
I thought he was arrested for not complying with search/trace/takedown warrants against people who were (possibly) doing illegal activity. If that is true he presumably would be responsible.
The media would make a huge fuss no matter what.
> The buck stops with him, sure but he didn't personally partake in any of the alleged activity on telegram.
He's not accused of personally partaking in anything, the arrest warrant is about Telegram as a platform not working on removing content that broke the law, even when notified about it.
He's not accused of personally partaking in anything, the arrest warrant is about Telegram as a platform not working on removing content that broke the law, even when notified about it.
Yes but that is the company Telegram, not him personally. Keeping a person in custody is a very heavy handed measure. And not very effective.
Telegram can easily replace him as CEO with someone else after all.
Telegram can easily replace him as CEO with someone else after all.
What is he accused of? I can't find any sources that say any more than that, he was arrested, and that the warrant was issued by a team investigating larger issues.
Here you have the accusations, directly from the prosecutors: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
They don't need him in jail until the court case starts.
He can't run away without looking guilty.
He can't run away without looking guilty.
The most ironic part of this news is that "Macron posted on X."
That's a flight risk if I ever heard of one.
He can’t be detained for more than 96 hours without a court ruling. The clock ran out, so he was brought to court. That’s it.
Means they don't have much, otherwise would not have run the clock....
some American media is reporting that his personal cell phone was hacked for a long time before this arrest. One implication is that he is personally "dirty" in some real way -- so the story essentially supports the arrest and charges.
Since this is high public profile by definition, expect lots more questionable spin to come.. IMHO
Since this is high public profile by definition, expect lots more questionable spin to come.. IMHO
> some American media is reporting
Can you please provide a source?
Can you please provide a source?
https://www.wsj.com/world/who-is-pavel-durov-telegram-founde...
His phone was hacked back in 2017. Afterwards the French government gave him an offer to collaborate (which was presumably declined).
His phone was hacked back in 2017. Afterwards the French government gave him an offer to collaborate (which was presumably declined).
Anisha Pandey writes for CoinSpeaker today, quoting a Wall Street Journal profile article "Who is Pavel Durov"
"French prosecutors say Telegram CEO freed from custody, will appear in court"
No, he won't.
No, he won't.
We already know how this will end. Russia will arrest a few French tourists on trumped up charges and they'll sit in a sad Russian jail until Macron intervenes and lets Durov go. It's the same playbook over and over. Durov is like the Russian Mark Zuckerberg, people at this level are not touchable by the law if they have the czar's favor.
> Macron intervenes and lets Durov go
No clue if this will happen, or how much of a good/bad thing it would be. But it would sure be funny to happen after Macron publicly stated the executive had nothing to do with the arrest. Guess the judiciary is independent... some of the time.
No clue if this will happen, or how much of a good/bad thing it would be. But it would sure be funny to happen after Macron publicly stated the executive had nothing to do with the arrest. Guess the judiciary is independent... some of the time.
Now this thing goes in since a few days. Are I'm the only one who wonder, why France does not release a proper press release? Is this really a country in central Europe, they catch a super public figure and just .. say nothing?!?
Shame.
I wonder if we'll see him pull something like this [1]: An ex-CEO of Nissan fleeing Japan in a box!
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57760993
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57760993
I heard an interview with the guy who actually smuggled him out a while ago, he was an ex special forces soldier who ended up getting caught hand did a bunch of time for it. It’s a pretty crazy story. He certainly wasn’t the same person after that experience.
I suspect he’ll be under more Assange-in-the-embassy style scrutiny than the executive charged with financial crimes was.
I don’t think anyone was expecting Ghosn to pull some cloak-and-dagger shit, where I have to imagine DGSI is all over this one, and were probably the people behind the original request.
I don’t think anyone was expecting Ghosn to pull some cloak-and-dagger shit, where I have to imagine DGSI is all over this one, and were probably the people behind the original request.
I wonder if he stepped down and no longer had the ability to comply if they'd still hold him or not.
If he flees Telegram is done.
I doubt it. They can try banning Telegram just like Russia did, but it clearly didn't work for the latter.
They can disrupt Telegram operations by financial sanctions, which is more efficient. Russia technically could do it too - Russian audience is not small, but they probably benefit from it a lot.
How so? Because they could prohibit Telegram in France?
They could seize the company
France cannot seize a company in the United Arab Emirates.
Eumenes(1)
option(2)
> In addition to Russia and France, Durov is also a citizen of the United Arab Emirates and the Caribbean island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis.
So four citizenships? It's getting hard not look at this as dodgy.
So four citizenships? It's getting hard not look at this as dodgy.
It is not that hard. I have my birth citizenship. But my grandpa was an Italian, so it entitled me to obtain Italian citizenship. My wife's grandpa and grandma are portuguese, so this entitles her, and me as her husband to portuguese citizenship. And I am not rich as Mr Durov, if I was, probably I'd have a few more passports for business and tax purposes.
St Kitts and Nevis is notorious for giving out citizenships to those who can afford to 'invest'
For the curious:
OPTION 1. Donate to the Sustainable Island State Contribution (SISC)
Your SISC donation to the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis must be at least $250,000 as a single applicant. Additionally, this rises to $275,000 if you include an extra dependent under 18. Furthermore, if you add a dependent over 18, you will pay $300,000.
OPTION 2. Invest in Property
The Developer’s Real Estate Option requires you to invest no less than $400,000 in an approved real estate development. Consequently, you must own the property for at least seven years. Furthermore, it can only be resold once, to a new CBI programme member.
In contrast, an Approved Private Home, either a condo or single-family dwelling, qualifies as a CBI option. In this case, you must pay at least $400,000 to the condo owner and $800,000 to the single-family dwelling owner.
Subsequently, you have to own the private home for at least seven years. Following this, you can’t resell your real estate investment to a CBI applicant unless Federal Cabinet approves. Ultimately, you must inject substantial extra investment by way of construction, renovation, or any other improvements.
OPTION 3. Contribute to an Approved Public Benefit Project
Invest at least $250,000 in a project that boosts local employment and, also, transfers all real estate to the State on completion.
src: https://www.riftrust.com/citizenship-by-investment/st-kitts-...
OPTION 1. Donate to the Sustainable Island State Contribution (SISC)
Your SISC donation to the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis must be at least $250,000 as a single applicant. Additionally, this rises to $275,000 if you include an extra dependent under 18. Furthermore, if you add a dependent over 18, you will pay $300,000.
OPTION 2. Invest in Property
The Developer’s Real Estate Option requires you to invest no less than $400,000 in an approved real estate development. Consequently, you must own the property for at least seven years. Furthermore, it can only be resold once, to a new CBI programme member.
In contrast, an Approved Private Home, either a condo or single-family dwelling, qualifies as a CBI option. In this case, you must pay at least $400,000 to the condo owner and $800,000 to the single-family dwelling owner.
Subsequently, you have to own the private home for at least seven years. Following this, you can’t resell your real estate investment to a CBI applicant unless Federal Cabinet approves. Ultimately, you must inject substantial extra investment by way of construction, renovation, or any other improvements.
OPTION 3. Contribute to an Approved Public Benefit Project
Invest at least $250,000 in a project that boosts local employment and, also, transfers all real estate to the State on completion.
src: https://www.riftrust.com/citizenship-by-investment/st-kitts-...
>> It's getting hard not look at this as dodgy.
Well, if he dodges this warrant by fleeing, Telegram will be persona non grata across western Europe.
Well, if he dodges this warrant by fleeing, Telegram will be persona non grata across western Europe.
I feel like it only comes across as dodgy because of the jason-bourne genre of spy flicks where agents have stacks of passports and alternate identities
What's dodgy about having multiple countries consider you respectable enough ( slash rich enough ) to issue you citizenship?
What's dodgy about having multiple countries consider you respectable enough ( slash rich enough ) to issue you citizenship?
I seem to remember that Russia considered multiple citizenship as illegal ?
It's a billionaire thing.
No, it just needs some time and effort, and you need a good lawyer (I remember lcamtuf writing about it on his blog). You just need a residence (even if it's a coach (or basement) at your friend's) in a country for a few years; you need to visit periodically and ensure your lawyer is advancing your case. 3-5 years later (depending on the country, of course), you get citizenship and a passport. It's absolutely doable without too much of an effect on your financials if you work in tech or a similarly well-paid job. If you do this consistently over the years, you'd have 3-4 passports by your forties. Unfortunately, people under forty rarely seem to think that far ahead. I'm personally starting to really worry about retirement, but I'm too old and too ill now to jump ship like that...
BTW, I'd like to send you a private message - is the `pro` (at) your.domain a good way to do that?
BTW, I'd like to send you a private message - is the `pro` (at) your.domain a good way to do that?
Try [email protected] and write something strangers wouldn't know :)
I’m a citizen of three countries. I don’t know that it is all that unusual to have multiple citizenships, particularly for the very rich (a group I am most deinfitely not a part of) who might access citizenship via investment in a country.
> access citizenship via investment in a country.
I guess that's what they mean by "it's a billionaire thing"
I guess that's what they mean by "it's a billionaire thing"
To be clear anyone with a few million in savings can take on multiple citizenships as a hobby, maybe OP just considers it table stakes for billionaires, as in, why wouldn't you.
St kitts and Nevis is only a quarter mil, tho I don't know what benefit that would confer unless you're coming from a country without visa free travel
And for what it's worth, UAE citizenship is not for sale directly, you have to actually live there long term
Nice table on this page: https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/citizenship-by-invest...
St kitts and Nevis is only a quarter mil, tho I don't know what benefit that would confer unless you're coming from a country without visa free travel
And for what it's worth, UAE citizenship is not for sale directly, you have to actually live there long term
Nice table on this page: https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/citizenship-by-invest...
Residency is pretty much for sale in the UAE. However it is virtually impossible to be naturalized in the UAE through the official route. Most of the country is foreign born and there are lots of benefits to being a citizen so this deliberate. It requires something like 30 years of uninterrupted residency. Most people who get it are basically granted citizenship by a king. That’s why when you look at the list of Emiratis on Wikipedia the ones who aren’t Arab are almost entirely elite athletes and businessmen with political connections. It’s interesting that France and the UAE granted him citizenship and hacked his phone together.
Have to assume they are about to arrest the CEO's of all of the largest internet providers in France for the same reasons. If not then this is absolutely a political decision and France has decided to punish anyone daring to allow people to speak without government supervision.
What makes you think CEOs of all the largest internet providers in France don't already cooperate with authorities?
I'm sure they do, but that does not change the fact that all of the things Durov is accused of doing are only possible on the infrastructure provided by those same internet companies. So yes, you are right they likely do cooperate already and this is a purely political prosecution flying in the face of Macron's statement.
There's no evidence it's purely political.
In France the citizens want tech companies to cooperate with authorities to prevent the spread of CSAM.
Durov is a French citizen. His tech company does not cooperate with authorities. The authorities wanted to have a chat with him about that. Most discussions in Telegram are not end-to-end encrypted, meaning Telegram could probably do much more to stop the spread of CSAM.
It's not just about CSAM — they mention terrorism, and the French authorities also probably also want to know what sort of deal he made with Russia to allow him to travel freely to and from that country after they attempted to ban Telegram.
In France the citizens want tech companies to cooperate with authorities to prevent the spread of CSAM.
Durov is a French citizen. His tech company does not cooperate with authorities. The authorities wanted to have a chat with him about that. Most discussions in Telegram are not end-to-end encrypted, meaning Telegram could probably do much more to stop the spread of CSAM.
It's not just about CSAM — they mention terrorism, and the French authorities also probably also want to know what sort of deal he made with Russia to allow him to travel freely to and from that country after they attempted to ban Telegram.
> There's no evidence it's purely political.
There is a lot of evidence it's not. In France, the executive power (president, government, prefect) always ask a "procureur" to indict someone (issue a warrant and direct the police). In this very case, it's a "Juge d'instruction", which are notoriously independent (And it caused enough issues to have a Sarkozy/Dati law that tried to curtail this liberty around 2010, and still you have conservatives and far-right people asking for less initiative from this kind of judges (one of them ordered former president Sarkozy's phone to be put under surveillance).
Unless someone can draw a direct line from the OFMIN judge to Macron, i consider people talking about "political" bullshitter.
There is a lot of evidence it's not. In France, the executive power (president, government, prefect) always ask a "procureur" to indict someone (issue a warrant and direct the police). In this very case, it's a "Juge d'instruction", which are notoriously independent (And it caused enough issues to have a Sarkozy/Dati law that tried to curtail this liberty around 2010, and still you have conservatives and far-right people asking for less initiative from this kind of judges (one of them ordered former president Sarkozy's phone to be put under surveillance).
Unless someone can draw a direct line from the OFMIN judge to Macron, i consider people talking about "political" bullshitter.
Yes, it is also only possible to kill with a knife if the seller sells you one.
It is only possible to smash a car against a showcase and commit a robbery if you get the car from the seller.
It is also...
No, it is not a good argument in my opinion. By this measure, we could be deriving criminal responsibility from almost any action.
Imagine that you sell forks and someone stabs a fork into the eye of another person. Would you be guilty? People can make bad use of anything. That does not makes us guilty.
It is just absurd.
It is only possible to smash a car against a showcase and commit a robbery if you get the car from the seller.
It is also...
No, it is not a good argument in my opinion. By this measure, we could be deriving criminal responsibility from almost any action.
Imagine that you sell forks and someone stabs a fork into the eye of another person. Would you be guilty? People can make bad use of anything. That does not makes us guilty.
It is just absurd.
Right, I agree, arresting Durov because of what people do or do not do on Telegram is absurd.
…and this is not what is happening, so what’s the point in circling around this false argument?
The initial police examination/interrogation has ended ("garde à vue"), and he's now been brought before a judge who will decide if he should be freed or kept in an actual jail (which a police station isn't).
Until the judge makes that decision he's still very much detained by the police (albeit not interrogated).