The arrest in France of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has brought into sharp focus one of the major conflicts of our age. On one hand, we want privacy in our digital lives, which is why we like the kind of end-to-end encryption Telegram promises. On the other, we want the government to be able to stamp out repugnant online activities — such as child pornography or terrorist plotting. The reality is that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too.
Durov last month was charged with complicity in crimes taking place on the app, including distributing child pornography, drug trafficking and selling hacking software, as well as with refusing to cooperate with French authorities’ investigations.
In a public statement, Durov said he has aided investigators, that the app moderates content as best it can, and that if “we can’t agree with a country’s regulator on the right balance between privacy and security … we are ready to leave that country.”
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
The tradeoffs between privacy and safety are real. Recognizing that makes hard policy choices inevitable. However, we have not made those choices yet — not the EU, where Durov was arrested, nor the US. Until we do, arresting the CEOs is little more than a misguided, symbolic move. Criminal arrest should be reserved for people who have contravened clearly established law, not entrepreneurs providing the public with products we are not exactly sure we want to allow.
A bit more than one decade old, Telegram has almost 1 billion monthly users worldwide. It seems probable that many of them started using the app for the same reason: privacy that is supposed to be superior to that offered by other messaging platforms.
Privacy can function as a form of subtle resistance to powerful forces, whether corporate or governmental. Saying you do not want anyone listening in can be a way of asserting sovereignty over some corner of one’s life. (It is likely not a coincidence that Durov and his cofounder brother are Russian exiles, members of a culture thoroughly accustomed to pervasive government surveillance.)
Privacy is also an aspect of human dignity. In nearly all cultures on earth, people choose to protect some parts of their bodies or some of their activities from others’ prying eyes. Cultures differ on what should be private, but that variation is secondary to the basic impulse that some aspects of the self are not for public consumption.
Such points often get quickly shoved aside when the conversation turns to safety — particularly when a crime is one we have deemed utterly reprehensible.
Online, as in real life, the better the surveillance, the greater the safety. Conversely, the more privacy, the more risk of a crime going undetected. The only difference between the physical and digital spheres is that in the former, most societies have developed fairly stable beliefs about the right balance between privacy and safety, beliefs long enshrined in law. Online, we are still figuring it out — and we want to have it both ways.
The real question about apps such as Telegram, then, is pretty simple: Do we want there to be spaces where people can genuinely evade surveillance? Or do we think that the benefits are not worth the inevitable costs, which is that some people would take advantage of digital privacy to commit crimes we rightly abhor?
It is an illusion to imagine that there is some solution that perfectly preserves both privacy and safety. Automated algorithmic surveillance is still surveillance. Relying on governments to seek warrants before breaking privacy, a feature of existing law in liberal democracies, only works if the communications are not truly encrypted, but can be accessed through a back door. Relying on the platforms to review communication turns private companies into the powerful agents of even more powerful governmental forces.
We would eventually reach some sort of consensus about how and when to sacrifice privacy for safety, and vice versa — in the form of new laws, from civil penalties to (when necessary) criminal law.
In a world where we have not yet made up our minds, it is a cop-out to arrest a CEO like Durov. The arrest might make us feel good, because it gives the impression that a government is using all means at its disposal to pursue crime. However, that feeling is illusory — because it masks our own ongoing ambivalence about true digital privacy.
It is time we confronted the privacy-safety trade-off honestly. Until we have a clearer answer enshrined in law, arresting CEOs is not the solution.
Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and the author of To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS