.jfif)
Durov’s Arrest Details Released, Leaving More Questions Than Answers
from the still-concerning dept
Is the arrest of Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, a justified move to combat illegal activities, or is it a case of dangerous overreach that threatens privacy and free speech online? We had hoped that when French law enforcement released the details of the charges we’d have a better picture of what happened. Instead, we’re actually just left with more questions and concerns.
Earlier today we wrote about the arrest and how it already raised a lot of questions that didn’t have easy answers. Soon after that post went out, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris released a press release with some more details about the investigation (in both French and English). All it does is leave most of the questions open, which might suggest they don’t have very good answers.
First, the report notes “the context of the judicial investigation” which may be different from what he is eventually charged with, though the issues are listed as “charges.”
I would bucket the list of charges into four categories, each of which raise concerns. If I had to put these in order of greatest concern to least, it would be as follows:
- Stuff about encryption. The last three charges are all variations on “providing a cryptology service/tool” without some sort of “prior declaration” or “certified declaration.” Apparently, France (like some other countries) has certain import/export controls on encryption. It appears they’re accusing Durov of violating those by not going through the official registration process. But, here, it’s hard not to see that as totally pretextual: an excuse to arrest Durov over other stuff they don’t like him doing.
- “Complicity” around a failure to moderate illegal materials. There are a number of charges around this. Complicity to “enable illegal transactions” for “possessing” and “distributing” CSAM, for selling illegal drugs, hacking tools, and organized fraud. But what is the standard for “complicity” here? This is where it gets worrisome. If it’s just a failure to proactively moderate, that seems very problematic. If it’s ignoring direct reports of illegal behavior, then it may be understandable. If it’s more directly and knowingly assisting criminal behavior, then things get more serious. But the lack of details here make me worry it’s the earlier options.
- Refusal to cooperate with law enforcement demands for info: This follows on from my final point in number two. There’s a suggestion in the charges (the second one) that Telegram potentially ignored demands from law enforcement. It says there was a “refusal to communicate, at the request of competent authorities, information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law.” This could be about encryption, and a refusal to provide info they didn’t have, or about not putting in a backdoor. If it’s either of those, that would be very concerning. However, if it’s just “they didn’t respond to lawful subpoenas/warrants/etc.” that… could be something that’s more legitimate.
- Finally, money laundering. Again, this one is a bit unclear, but it says “laundering of the proceeds derived from organized group’s offences and crimes.” It’s difficult to know how serious any of this is, as that could represent something legitimate, or it could be French law enforcement saying “and they profited off all of this!” We’ve seen charges in other contexts where the laundering claims are kind of thrown in. Details could really matter here.
In the end, though, a lot of this does seem potentially very problematic. So far, there’s been no revelation of anything that makes me say “oh, well, that seems obviously illegal.” A lot of the things listed in the charge sheet are things that lots of websites and communications providers could be said to have done themselves, though perhaps to a different degree.
So we still don’t really have enough details to know if this is a ridiculous arrest, but it does seem to be trending towards that so far. Yes, some will argue that Durov somehow “deserves” this for hosting bad content, but it’s way more complicated than that.
I know from the report that Stanford put out earlier this year that Telegram does not report CSAM to NCMEC at all. That is very stupid. I would imagine Telegram would argue that as a non-US company it doesn’t have to abide by such laws. These charges are in France rather than the US, but it still seems bad that the company does not report any CSAM to the generally agreed-upon organization that handles such reports, and to which companies operating in the US have a legal requirement to report.
But, again, there are serious questions about where you draw these lines. CSAM is content that is outright illegal. But some other stuff may just be material that some people dislike. If the investigation is focused just on the outright illegal content that’s one thing. If it’s not, then this starts to look worse.
On top of that, as always, are the intermediary liability questions, where the question should be how much responsibility a platform has for its users’ use of the system. The list of “complicity” in various bad things worries me because every platform has some element of that kind of content going on, in part because it’s impossible to stop entirely.
And, finally, as I mentioned earlier today, it still feels like many of these issues would normally be worthy of a civil procedure, perhaps by the EU, rather than a criminal procedure by a local court in France.
So in the end, while it’s useful to see the details of this investigation, and it makes me lean ever so slightly in the direction of thinking these potential charges go too far, we’re still really missing many of the details.
Nothing released today has calmed the concerns that this is overreach, but nothing has made it clear that it definitely is overreach either.
Filed Under: complicity, content moderation, csam, encryption, france, law enforcement, pavel durov
Companies: telegram
Telegram Creator Speaks on Elon Musk, FBI Pressure, and Surviving California Mugging
No comments:
Post a Comment