• einkorn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      4 months ago

      The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That’s unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

      If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

    • XNX@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree but its not even an encrypted messenger. Almost no one uses the weak encryption and im pretty sure they offer decryption to governments considering they were threatened to be banned in russia and avoided it

    • sugartits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What has encryption got to do with it?

      Most of telegram is not encrypted. There are unencrypted channels on telegram right now hosting child pornography. Telegram never removes them.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Good. They shouldn’t.

        Unencrypted channels are the ones that are easiest to trace, and the easiest ones to successfully base a prosecution on.

        The most correct response is to report them to law enforcement. Unencrypted channels make amazingly effective honeypots. It’s fairly easy to bust people using unencrypted channels, esp. because people think they’re anonymous and safe. It’s much, much harder to bust people once they move to .onion sites and the real dark net away from their phone. When you shut down all the easy channels, you push people into areas where it’s much harder, almost impossible, to root them out.

        • whereisk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          What if telegram refuses to cooperate with law enforcement in a timely fashion to provide details of the people sharing that material? What should law enforcement do then?

          • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            At that point they’re willingly hosting it for no reason other than to host it for their customers and they’re complicit, no?

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I think that holding the executives and BoD in criminal contempt of court is a good place to start.

            EDIT: AFAIK Telegram doesn’t use warrant canaries.

        • flying_sheep
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          No. You can say that about so many laws being made, but telegram simply hosts the most vile shit.

          • ravhall@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            So you’re saying we should shut down any service that allows encrypted communication? Because any service that offers encrypted communication is going to be enticing to someone who commits crimes.

              • ravhall@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                We should shut down any organization that doesn’t cooperate with police when people are breaking laws or just the laws you want them to help enforce?

                • flying_sheep
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  No, that’s not what the person is saying in the slightest. Just read their comment again, it’s actually very clear.

                  • ravhall@discuss.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Creating a Telegram Channel to help underage victims of rape in Idaho get abortions out of state without their parent’s consent is also a crime. Would you want to shut them down for allowing those groups?

                    If Telegram is indeed knowledgeable of specific groups distributing CSAM, goes into that group and views the material to confirm, and still does nothing about it, then yes… that’s pretty terrible. However, it’s law enforcement’s responsibility to find those people and arrest them. If Telegram is shut down, there will always be another method. TOR, popup forums, file sharing sites like MEGA.

                    What I’m saying is focusing on the communication method is like trying to kill a hydra.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It doesn’t matter in the slightest.

        Making a tool that provides a private communication service literally everyone should have unrestricted access to does not make you an accomplice to anything.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          The ISP will absolutely cooperate with law enforcement though, unlike telegram. That seems the nature of the issue in that there is a lack of moderation and oversight, which anonymity is not mutually-exclusive from flagging nefarious activities, ideally. I REALLY am not too keen on giving safe harbor to the likes of pedos and traffickers and what have you.

        • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Why? They happily hand all your data over to whoever asks and so does everyone else that’s why they can single them out because you’re already bought and paid for.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        As always, there’s a lot of nuance which is lost on Lemmy users.

        It’s a question of exactly what telegram is being used for, what telegram the company can reasonably be aware of, what they’ve been asked to do, and what they’ve done.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        It is but so are phones and computers in general. Same with cars, many crimes require transportation.