|
Top-level
For the moment it might not be quite the challenge, because Signal just set up their system smarter than Telegram did, from what I remember. Signal's legal strategy when it comes to government requests is to first fight it tooth and nail, but when they eventually have to cooperate, they do, via "ah well, there you go, take this bit of nothing". It's a consequence of their messenger design, but it means they are legally cooperative when required, and they have designed… 4 comments
… While we shouldn't get complacent, I am carefully optimistic that we might manage to steer clear of any obvious legal constructs forcing more invasive measures from communications providers. But the legal requirement of moderation has been there forever, and Telegram's design is such that it would in principal be possible. Telegram just ignoring anything in that regard might not have been the smartest approach. That's of course just my superficial read on the situation.  @cherti I feel it's worse. Telegram is a mostly unmoderated social network that is purposefully masquerading as and pretending to be an encrypted IM. What this means is that its users are tricked into a false sense of security and thus put in harms way. And it also means that the actually secure, encrypted IM services, like Signal, become tagged with Telegram's failings. Pretty obnoxious if you ask me. But hey, how would Durov get a private plane otherwise, right? |
Gregory's Server
@blausand @rysiek
… their messenger accordingly, knowing they have to, which is a smart move.
Telegram's legal strategy, from what I remember, seemed to be to just plainly ignore any government requests, the consequence of which might just have happened to Durov now.
So I think Signal has already a pretty smart response to legislatory forces.
Of course there could always be a more authoritarian environment, but that would require a very straightforward mask-off approach in legislation. …