Change Under Pressure: Telegram Makes Controversial Policy Update After Founder’s Arrest
Pavel Durov deplaned from his private jet at the Le Bourget airport outside Paris when French police greeted him at the gate.[1] The Telegram founder insisted he came for dinner at the invitation of President Emmanual Macron, and implored the police not to delay him—though Macron’s office later denied any such invitation.[2] Whatever the case, Durov was arrested for allegedly violating France’s law by enabling Telegram to facilitate child pornography, organized crime, narcotic sales, and terrorism, among other crimes, in violation of France’s laws.[3]
Telegram is a messaging app allowing users to connect privately or join chat rooms with as many as 200,000 others, compared with WhatsApp’s 1,024-user limit.[4] The platform hosts 900 million users monthly, similarly to Messenger and Viber, though far less than WhatsApp.[5] It is especially popular in Eastern Europe for its security features, so much so that Russia’s military relies on the app as a primary communication tool in the trenches of Ukraine.[6]
Telegram’s commitment to privacy and security is the result of Durov’s alluring though dubious libertarian vision for online connectivity, what some call an “anarchic paradise.”[7] Despite a user interface that resembles other messaging apps, Telegram’s elusive and tightly controlled leadership structure is challenging for governments to hold accountable.[8] Telegram lacks Facebook’s or X’s (formerly Twitter’s) phalanx of lawyers, regular corporate board meetings, or imposing offices.[9] Telegram’s official 3000 square foot headquarter in Dubai has reportedly been empty for three years.[10] Whereas Facebook and X work diligently to explain and update their positions on contemporary issues to users, Telegram communicates its direction by referring to its founder’s 2015 interview with Mashable.[11] As Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre, proclaimed in 1655, “I am the state,” Durov is Telegram.
Given Telegram’s idiosyncratic governance, an honest analysis must address both the creator and creation. A clear starting point is the app’s updated privacy policy.[12] Its provision on “Law Enforcement” formerly held that the app’s leadership could decide to comply with government requests when it received “a court order that confirm[ed] [a user] was a terror suspect in cases related to ‘terror.’”mfn]Joseph Cox, Telegram Changes Policy, Says it Will Provide User Data to Authorities, 404 Media (Sept. 24, 2024, 12:17 PM), https://www.404media.co/telegram-changes-policy-says-it-will-provide-user-data-to-authorities/ [https://perma.cc/VA8G-5KVX].[/mfn] The provision now applies broadly to “suspect[s] in a case involving criminal activities.”[13] But a noncommittal tone belies the dramatic change, as Telegram subjects the requests to its own legal analysis, after which it “may” disclose information to governments.[14] Moreover the information the app does hand over to the authorities includes only phone numbers and IP addresses, not the communications themselves.[15]
It is unclear what the change in the privacy policy means for Telegram users, not least while Durov’s freedom remains uncertain. Considering that a forced rather than deliberative compromise likely produced the policy update, Durov may reverse it when he is presumably let free.[16] But imagining it to be permanent, the updated policy could make it more challenging for dissident groups inside authoritarian countries. They rely on Telegram’s security not to hide their online purchases or merely controversial views, but to coordinate political activities that could get them killed.[17]
Durov denies that Telegram will suddenly begin rubberstamping government requests for information, arguing that that it has always complied with such requests “as long as they didn’t go against [Telegram’s] values of freedom and privacy.”[18] This suggests that the updated policy is merely a clarification, not a meaningful change. But considering Durov’s current vulnerable position under French authorities, it is understandable why those whose lives depend on anonymity are skeptical at best.
Footnotes
