Explore why Telegram and its founder Pavel Durov face criticism and accusations, despite the existence of other platforms using encryption. Questions of fairness and the justification of such actions.
When it comes to the arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, it is crucial to raise fundamental questions about the fairness and justification of such actions. In today’s world, many platforms, devices, and services use encryption and offer users the ability to exchange messages securely. Yet, the focus remains on Telegram and its creator. Let’s explore why.
Numerous Platforms and Devices with Encryption
Today, we have access not only to messaging apps but also to various communication tools that use encryption to protect user data. Here are a few examples:
- Messaging Apps: Besides Telegram, there are many other popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Viber that also use end-to-end encryption. All of these platforms provide a high level of confidentiality for their users, preventing third parties from accessing their communications.
- Mobile Phones and Computers: The devices on which messaging apps are installed also play a crucial role in the communication process. Without these devices, the exchange of information would be impossible. They provide physical access to encrypted data and serve as intermediaries between users.
- Internet Service Providers: These companies provide the necessary infrastructure for data transmission, including messages, between users. They control the communication channels through which all data, including encrypted data, is transmitted.
Related: Evaluating the Authenticity of Paws Telegram Mini App: An In-depth Analysis
The Logic of the Accusations: Why Telegram?
A reasonable question arises: if messaging apps, devices, and internet service providers are integral parts of the communication process, why is the responsibility placed solely on the creator of the messaging app? Why are the owners of other messaging apps, device manufacturers, or internet service providers not held accountable?
Selective Pressure on Messaging Apps: Telegram has been targeted by various governments due to its refusal to provide access to user data. However, many other platforms with similar functions and policies do not face the same level of scrutiny. This raises the question of whether there are hidden motives behind these actions and why Telegram, in particular, is under attack.
Related: Bitget Wallet Injects $20 Million to Boost Telegram Mini Application Ecosystem
Questions About Data Sharing: Hidden Motives?
There are several possible explanations for why other platforms, despite having similar privacy policies, do not face the same level of pressure:
- Data Sharing Upon Request, But Without Public Acknowledgment: It is possible that other messaging apps, like WhatsApp or iMessage, do share user data with authorities upon request but do not publicly admit to it. These companies may have confidential agreements with governments, providing access to data in exchange for avoiding public pressure. This creates the illusion of privacy protection for users, while in reality, information may be shared with authorities upon request. If this is the case, these platforms are misleading their users by claiming their communications are secure and private, while in reality, they may be at risk of data breaches.
- Refusal to Publicly Acknowledge Data Sharing: Some companies may categorically refuse to officially acknowledge that they share user data, even if it occurs in practice. This denial may be part of a strategy to maintain user trust and preserve their reputation. Publicly admitting to data sharing could lead to widespread discontent and a mass exodus of users, which would be unacceptable for large tech companies reliant on a vast user base.
- The Idea of an Organized Platform: The accusation that Telegram allegedly facilitates illegal activities is based on the claim that the platform has created a space where such actions can occur. However, this logic is flawed. If we follow this reasoning, every service provider or equipment manufacturer that allows information exchange should also be held responsible.
- Lack of Similar Accusations Against Others: WhatsApp, Signal, Apple (with iMessage), internet service providers, and device manufacturers have not faced similar accusations, even though they offer the same or even more extensive capabilities for encrypted data exchange. This creates an impression of unequal and unjust application of the law.
The Basis of the Alleged Accusation
The alleged accusation against Pavel Durov and Telegram is based on the assumption that the platform provides cover for criminal activity because its creators refused to provide access to users’ encrypted communications. However, this accusation overlooks key aspects:
Related: Telegram Launches In-App Browser for Decentralized Websites
- The Principle of Platform Neutrality: Messaging apps, like devices or internet service providers, are neutral tools that can be used for various purposes, both legal and illegal. Responsibility for illegal actions lies with the users, not the platforms that provide the communication infrastructure.
- Lack of Proven Guilt: The accusations against Durov and Telegram are not supported by evidence that the company deliberately facilitated illegal activities. The platform simply provides tools for communication, similar to other companies in this sector.
- Ignoring Other Participants in the Chain: The accusation does not take into account the role of other participants in the communication chain, such as device manufacturers and internet service providers. Why should the responsibility for breaking the law fall solely on the creator of a messaging app, rather than on the entire technological process?
Conclusion
The situation with the arrest of Pavel Durov and the accusations against Telegram raises serious questions about the fairness and justification of such actions. If the platform merely provides neutral tools for communication, on what grounds can its creator be held responsible for the actions of its users? Why do other companies involved in the data transmission process remain outside the scrutiny of the authorities?
These questions require open discussion and clear answers to prevent future precedents where technologies and their creators become hostages to political or economic interests.
