I really hope this doesn't become an "encryption bad" cudgel.
> The main accusation by EU authorities concerns Telegram’s encrypted messaging services, which were allegedly used to facilitate organised crime. One investigator stated that ‘Telegram has become the number one platform for organised crime over the years’, underlining the perceived link between the platform’s privacy features and criminal activities.
It's unclear to me how much this "perceived link" is on behalf of the author of the article, as opposed to the prosecutors themselves.
Telegram doesn’t have mandatory e2ee, which puts it in this kind of situation. Having data on crime committing and denying access to it from authorities is a crime itself in most countries.
Right, I think that's an important distinction to make, but it's not really one that's explored in the article.
The article doesn't say anything about E2EE specifically, but I think it would be understandable to "read between the lines" and assume that Telegram is in trouble for offering E2EE - but I think/hope that assumption would be incorrect.
Because the post cooperates with law enforcement. The issue here isnt that criminals used telegram, it's that telegram didnt cooperate with the state. If you want to have a policy of non-cooperation you cant hold the unencrypted data.
> The main accusation by EU authorities concerns Telegram’s encrypted messaging services, which were allegedly used to facilitate organised crime. One investigator stated that ‘Telegram has become the number one platform for organised crime over the years’, underlining the perceived link between the platform’s privacy features and criminal activities.
It's unclear to me how much this "perceived link" is on behalf of the author of the article, as opposed to the prosecutors themselves.