The arrest of Telegram’s CEO is a grave threat to our freedom
by Nicola Massella
THE arrest of Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, marks a watershed moment in the battle for digital freedom. What might seem like an isolated legal case in France could instead signal the beginning of a dangerous new era where our most fundamental rights to privacy and expression are under threat.
Durov has been charged with fraud, complicity in organised crime, and other serious allegations.
However, these charges do not arise from personal wrongdoing. Instead, they target his role as head of Telegram. The French authorities seem to be holding Durov responsible for the actions of Telegram’s users, rather than his own.
It’s not that Durov has personally facilitated or endorsed illegal activity, but rather, he’s being targeted because Telegram refused to cooperate with authorities and share user data.
As Megan McArdle noted in her Washington Post opinion piece, “we’ve already been wrestling with the problems posed by services like Telegram for many years—and will do so for many to come”.
This arrest has reignited a long-standing debate: Should platforms where speech is unfettered be held responsible for how some users exploit the freedom they provide?
Durov’s case underscores the difficulty of balancing the protection of free speech with the responsibility of preventing criminal activity.
The precedent problem
This case is particularly alarming because it sets a dangerous precedent for holding platform providers accountable for their users’ actions.
Unlike previous high-profile cases like Ross Ulbricht’s Silk Road, where platforms were designed with illicit purposes in mind, Telegram serves millions globally, including dissidents fighting oppressive regimes. It was not created to facilitate crime, and holding Durov liable for what happens on his platform could lead to a chilling effect on all digital communication services.
Megan McArdle again points out the challenge here: “The possibility that loose moderation and encrypted messaging are empowering heinous crimes is a real challenge for the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.”
Indeed, platforms that resist censorship and surveillance may inadvertently make it easier for criminals to operate. But the question shouldn’t be whether platforms like Telegram “want to help such people”, as McArdle observes, but rather, “whether it’s worth sacrificing our own liberties to make it easier for the government to stop them”.
Why this matters for digital privacy
Telegram’s commitment to user privacy - refusing to spy on users or hand over data to governments - is one of the reasons why people use the platform. Many of its users are political dissidents, journalists, and individuals living in repressive countries.
If Telegram were forced to comply with every request for user data, it could end up handing over sensitive information to regimes like Russia’s, where such data could lead to the arrest - or even execution - of activists and political dissidents.
If the French authorities’ stance is upheld, it would fundamentally alter the landscape of digital privacy. Platforms would be forced to implement mass surveillance to avoid liability, threatening the very notion of private communication.
This kind of action, as McArdle highlights, comes with significant risks. She notes that “it’s tempting to say that we’ll let only the good governments have those powers… But when such powers are used, they can be abused, as even democratic governments have done”.
A recent example of such abuse is reflected in Facebook’s decision to censor certain information under pressure from the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As McArdle points out, even well-intentioned censorship ended up silencing reasonable speculation about the origins of the virus, as well as suppressing important news about Hunter Biden’s laptop. This kind of censorship - made under the guise of “helping people” - is a clear warning of how governmental pressure on platforms can lead to harmful consequences for democracy.
The slippery slope
The arrest of Durov forces us to consider the broader implications of what happens when governments compel platforms to moderate content or hand over user data.
While it might seem that a crackdown on Telegram is a necessary step to curb illegal activity, we must recognize the slippery slope this presents. Today, it’s Telegram. Tomorrow, it could be any platform - potentially even those with no connection to crime -being forced to curtail user privacy and freedom.
This is particularly concerning when we remember that it’s not just repressive governments that push for control. Democratic governments have also proven capable of overreach.
McArdle astutely observes that we “keep deciding anew to tie officials’ hands: not because we’re afraid of what they’ll do to the criminals, but because we’re afraid of what might eventually be done to us”.
Once these tools for surveillance and control are created, they will almost certainly be used and abused.
The case for decentralisation
The Durov case also highlights the growing need for decentralised platforms, where no single individual or entity can be held responsible for the actions of users.
Decentralisation offers a potential solution by distributing control among users, reducing the risk of government pressure on a single entity like Telegram. If the future of communication lies in decentralised networks, it could offer a way to preserve privacy and free speech while making it more difficult for any government or platform owner to monitor and censor communications.
Telegram is currently built as a centralised platform, which makes it vulnerable to government interference. By contrast, decentralised technologies distribute power, making it much harder for governments or corporations to force compliance with surveillance or moderation requests.
In the future, more tools may need to be decentralised to safeguard the freedom to communicate privately and securely.
A moment of reflection
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications, not only for Durov but for digital freedom worldwide. If he is convicted, it could signal the beginning of a new era where providing a platform for free expression and secure communication is seen as a crime.
As McArdle observes, we must ask ourselves whether the trade-offs we make in the name of security are truly worth the loss of our liberties. Once given up, these freedoms are difficult to reclaim.
Now is the time to reflect on what’s truly at stake: the right to communicate freely and privately without fear of surveillance or prosecution.
If we are willing to sacrifice these freedoms to make it easier for governments to stop bad actors, we risk handing over far more power than we realise - power that could one day be used against us all.
Nicola Massella - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolamassella/
D.Jur. Nicola Massella is an expert on crypto assets regulation in Switzerland and the EU. He leads the Legal & Compliance Dept. at STORM Partners, where his team provides the firm's clients with advisory services on matters related to Web3, blockchain and crypto.
