By G. Mudalige, Jadetimes Staff
G. Mudalige is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Technology & Innovation
Telegram, the popular messaging app, announced a significant shift in its privacy policy, now agreeing to share users' IP addresses and phone numbers with authorities when faced with valid legal requests, such as search warrants. The decision marks a departure from the platform's previous stance of prioritizing user privacy, which had attracted those seeking to avoid government surveillance, especially in politically repressive regions.
The announcement was made by Telegram's co-founder and CEO, Pavel Durov, in a post where he explained the rationale behind the decision. Durov emphasized that the policy was intended to deter criminals and protect the platform’s broader user base, which he claims consists mostly of law-abiding individuals. He pointed out that while only a tiny fraction of Telegram’s nearly one billion users are involved in criminal activities, this minority tarnishes the platform’s reputation.
This move follows Durov’s arrest by French authorities, where he faced accusations of enabling criminal activity through the platform. Charges against him included complicity in spreading illegal content such as child abuse materials and drug trafficking, as well as non-compliance with law enforcement demands. He has since denied the charges, stating that holding him personally responsible for crimes committed on Telegram is misguided.
Critics have long warned that Telegram’s features, such as allowing groups of up to 200,000 members, make it susceptible to misuse. Meta-owned WhatsApp, a competitor, limits group sizes to 1,000 members, helping to minimize the spread of extremist content. Telegram has been scrutinized for hosting extremist channels, including far-right groups and other illegal activities, contributing to its growing reputation as a platform for illicit content.
The controversy surrounding Telegram intensified last month after its involvement in far-right violence in English cities. Additionally, the app was banned on state-issued devices in Ukraine to mitigate perceived threats from Russia.
Durov’s policy reversal has sparked concern about the future of free speech on the internet, particularly among political dissidents who had previously felt safe using Telegram to share their views. John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, notes that this decision may have a chilling effect on users in regions like Russia, Belarus, and the Middle East, where dissent is often punished.
One key question now being asked by many is whether Telegram will start cooperating with authorities in repressive regimes. The platform has not clarified how it plans to handle requests from governments known for cracking down on free speech. In the past, Telegram only provided information on terror suspects, but the expanded policy now opens the door for wider cooperation with law enforcement, raising concerns in these politically sensitive regions.
Cybersecurity experts argue that while Telegram has taken steps to moderate illegal content, its approach is still far weaker than that of other social media platforms. In response to growing pressure, Durov announced the use of a "dedicated team of moderators" aided by artificial intelligence to hide problematic content from search results. However, experts like Daphne Keller from Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society believe these changes may not be enough to meet the requirements of French or European laws.
Keller explained that simply hiding illegal content is insufficient under certain legal frameworks. In many countries, platforms are required to not only remove illegal materials entirely but also to report specific types of content—such as child sexual abuse materials—to authorities. Failure to meet these legal standards could leave Telegram vulnerable to further legal challenges.
Moreover, law enforcement may demand more than just basic user information. Authorities are likely to seek comprehensive data, including details on who users are communicating with and the content of those conversations. Keller suggests that the recent changes may not fully satisfy law enforcement agencies that are focused on criminal investigations.
The evolving situation leaves many questions unanswered about how Telegram will balance the demands of law enforcement with its commitment to user privacy and free speech. Telegram’s user base, particularly those in politically repressive regions, are left to wonder if their communications will remain safe from government scrutiny under this new policy.
As Telegram navigates these new legal and ethical challenges, its future as a platform for secure, private communication is being closely watched by both advocates of free speech and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
