Timeline for How can Telegram defend themselves from law enforcement action?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22 at 1:25 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust I don't know for sure, but I'd expect that yes — the location of data (or keys) in a different jurisdiction should provide sufficient grounds for successful objection of subpoena asking to produce it, even if fetching that data is easy. Knowing how to access things does not necessarily make one liable to do it. | |
| Jun 21 at 13:53 | comment | added | Dust | @Greendrake Is the key parts being in a separate jurisdiction enough to fend it off the reach of a subpoena? Doesn't that relate back to my example of "Sorry, the password is in the Netherlands"? Further, given how high profile Telegram is, how come that the CEO or CTO who must, realistically, know a way of accessing the data especially given how the latter designed the entire system, never been targeted directly? | |
| Jun 21 at 10:09 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust The fact that only the keys are distributed (and not the data) does not make material difference: seizing the data and part of the key is still useless without seizing the rest of the key — which any single jurisdiction can't do. | |
| Jun 21 at 4:37 | comment | added | Dust | I think this answer might be the closest however there's still one blurry detail: The chunks of data for an individual chat or account are actually stored all in the same place, usually the closest based on the user's phone number country, only the keys are distributed. The Privacy Policy mentions this: "If you signed up for Telegram from the UK or the EEA, your data is stored in data centers in the Netherlands". And the API docs also detail the routing and migration of data to each datacenter: core.telegram.org/api/datacenter#user-migration | |
| Jun 21 at 3:57 | comment | added | Greendrake | @bdb484 I'm not aware of any laws that enable subpoenas or search warrants to demand something the existence of which is unprovable (which the data wanted by law enforcement is in this scenario). No known laws = no discussion of them. | |
| Jun 21 at 3:49 | comment | added | bdb484 | Despite the overhaul, this answer continues to omit any discussion of any actual laws and naturally ends up reaching incorrect conclusions. | |
| Jun 21 at 3:33 | history | edited | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Re-worked the answer in light of the links provided in the edited question
|
| Jun 21 at 1:42 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust Good links, thanks. I'll rework the answer. | |
| Jun 20 at 23:47 | comment | added | Dust | @Greendrake I have added 3 sources to the post, including two independent ones, showing Telegram's reluctance to cooperate with data requests | |
| Jun 20 at 8:30 | comment | added | Trish | @Greendrake supboenas must be answered, but you can demand to be compensated for required costs first - e.g. if you have to tear open a wall to follow the subpoena, you are entitled to be paid for the repair, if it costs your company 10-grand in flights to get the required team together to deposit, you have to pay that. | |
| Jun 20 at 4:34 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust What reports? It would help if you update the question with some links (that can be viewed without installing Telegram). I only recall the Russian government trying to get the encryption keys and then trying to ban the app 7 years ago or so. And I would certainly expect them to be uncooperative to the maximum extent they legally can. | |
| Jun 20 at 4:12 | comment | added | Dust | @Greendrake That is definitely possible however there are many documents and reports from government agencies complaining about how Telegram is uncooperative with law enforcement. The app and founder's long history also make it unlikely. | |
| Jun 20 at 3:43 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust I would not at all rule out that Telegram are bullshitters and that they do in fact routinely receive and comply with subpoenas from governments. Some subpoenas come with legal prohibition of revealing their existence. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary | |
| Jun 20 at 1:33 | history | edited | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| Jun 20 at 1:33 | comment | added | Dust | @Greendrake In their FAQ, Telegram states "To this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments.". Further, in their Privacy Policy, it is stated: "If Telegram receives a court order that confirms you're a terror suspect, we may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities. So far, this has never happened. When it does, we will include it in a semiannual transparency report published at: t.me/transparency." To my knowledge no such transparency report has ever been issued for any nation. | |
| Jun 20 at 1:30 | comment | added | Greendrake | @bdb484 In the context of this question, "defend itself from law enforcement action" means to find canny workarounds against lawful orders which would normally need to be complied with. So, I say they do not do it — they comply with lawful orders. But it does not mean they do not hire lawyers to fend off legal attacks. | |
| Jun 20 at 1:25 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust It would be interesting to see what exactly they claim. If they say the do disclose data "in specific instances", well that's it — every instance is specific. | |
| Jun 20 at 1:21 | comment | added | Dust | @Greendrake I find it hard to believe that Telegram would receive no other subpoenas given that we know from transparency reports that other companies such as Discord handle many of these each year. My suspicion is that Telegram has figured out some defense that allows them to claim in response that they are unable to access any data, similar to E2E encrypted apps. | |
| Jun 20 at 1:16 | comment | added | Greendrake | @Dust Subpoenas must be answered to. Conversely, if a police or FBI simply contacts them and says "can you give us this data please" they can say "show us the subpoena or fuck off", which is what they supposedly have been doing except for cases of "terror suspects in specific instances". | |
| Jun 20 at 1:14 | comment | added | Dust | @bdb484 Could you be more specific on the unsupported assumptions in my question? Is there something I'm mistaken on? | |
| Jun 20 at 1:11 | comment | added | bdb484 | @Greendrake All of them are unsupported, as you haven't cited any sources at all. For instance, I'd be particularly interested to learn how you came to believe that Telegram can't and doesn't defend itself from law enforcement action. | |
| Jun 20 at 1:10 | comment | added | Dust | Telegram claims to have never disclosed data to law enforcement agencies outside of terror suspects in specific instances, it would seem as if they get to pick and choose which requests they answer to | |
| Jun 20 at 0:59 | comment | added | Greendrake | @bdb484 Like what? | |
| Jun 20 at 0:55 | comment | added | bdb484 | Like the question, this answer is larded with unfounded an unsupported assumptions. | |
| Jun 20 at 0:51 | history | answered | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |