[ Telegram ] Justice Passes Away
The Paris prosecutor’s office is increasingly seen as driven by political motives, undermining its impartiality. The aggressive prosecution of Telegram’s Pavel Durov is the lastest example.
This is the English translation of our article, originally published in French on 08/24/2024, [ Telegram ] La justice (tré)passe
On August 24, 2024, Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, was detained at Le Bourget airport in France, marking a troubling escalation in the battle over digital freedom. After a 96-hour detention, Durov was released under strict conditions: a $5.5 million bail, a ban on leaving France, and mandatory biweekly police check-ins. French authorities are investigating him for alleged complicity in crimes facilitated by Telegram, including illegal transactions, child pornography, drug trafficking, and money laundering. Yet, the lack of specific evidence tying Durov to these activities raises alarms about the motives behind his arrest. This case is not just about one tech entrepreneur—it’s a test of whether the West will uphold its commitment to free speech and privacy in the digital age.
A Politically Charged Move
Durov’s arrest appears to be a calculated strike against a platform that challenges government control over online discourse. Telegram, with nearly a billion users worldwide, is a lifeline for those seeking private communication. Its on demand end-to-end encryption and refusal to censor content or share user data with authorities have made it a favorite among activists, journalists, and dissidents—from pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong to whistleblowers exposing government overreach. In Europe, where debates over "disinformation" and "hate speech" are intensifying, Telegram’s independence is a direct affront to governements seeking to regulate the internet.
The timing of the arrest fuels suspicions of political motivations. In France, the Macron administration has faced criticism for cracking down on dissent, particularly during protests of the Yellow Vests, against pension reform and against COVID-19 mandates. Across the Atlantic, similar tensions are evident in the U.S., where tech companies face pressure to align with government priorities on content moderation. By targeting Durov, France may be aiming to set an example, warning tech entrepreneurs that non-compliance carries personal consequences.
Unprecedented Legal Overreach
The charges against Durov are sweeping but lack substance. French prosecutors argue that Telegram’s minimal content moderation makes Durov an accessory in crimes committed on the platform. This reasoning is a departure from established norms. No CEO of a major tech company—whether Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg or Google’s Sundar Pichai—has faced arrest for user-generated content. The selective focus on Telegram suggests a double standard, likely tied to its refusal to cooperate with government mass surveillance demands.
Moreover, the accusations—ranging from child pornography to drug trafficking—are not backed by evidence directly implicating Durov. Holding a CEO personally liable for platform activity risks criminalizing the very tools that enable secure communication. If this logic prevails, platforms like Signal or even VPN providers could face similar scrutiny, threatening the privacy protections that millions rely on across the world.
Pavel Durov, was detained in France as an “assisted witness,” a status that underscores the fragility of the case against him. The lack of concrete evidence suggests that French investigating judges are under pressure to justify his detention to protect institutional credibility rather than pursue justice. This raises serious concerns across the about the misuse of judicial processes to coerce Telegram—a non-French company outside France’s jurisdiction—into complying with government demands to access user data for intelligence gatering purposes.
The Paris prosecutor’s press release, laden with legal ambiguities, has drawn criticism for echoing tactics seen in historical authoritarian regimes, twisting the rule of law to serve political ends.
The press release suggests a legal argument that would require the Paris prosecutor to open criminal investigations against the CEOs of Mercedes, BMW, and Audi, since drug traffickers predominantly use their high-performance cars for high-speed drug runs, known as “go-fasts.”
Additionally, the prosecutor should charge the CEOs of highway management companies with aiding drug trafficking, as they maintain the smooth roads that enable traffickers in the aforementionned German cars to outrun law enforcement. Furthermore, port officials, especially those overseeing Marseille and Le Havre, could be included for failing to stop the influx of cocaine through French ports.
Do as I say, not as I do
French President Emmanuel Macron’s vocal defense of the judiciary, insisting the case is not political, has only fueled skepticism. The executive branch’s need to comment on an ongoing judicial matter raises questions about the judiciary’s impartiality.
Further scrutiny surrounds Macron’s own reported use of Telegram for unencrypted communications during his tenure at the Ministry of Economy (2014–2016) and later at the Élysée Palace (2017 onward). Questions persist about whether security agencies approved such practices, especially given Telegram’s lack of default end-to-end encryption. These concerns are amplified by past scandals, such as former Justice Minister Jean-Jacques Urvoas’s 2017 conviction for leaking court priviledged information via Telegram to Thierry Solère, a Macron advisor facing 13 corruption and tax fraud charges. Such incidents highlight the need for transparency and accountability in how leaders engage with technology and the justice system, ensuring that legal processes are not weaponized to suppress digital freedom.
A Broader Assault on Digital Freedom
Durov’s arrest reflects a growing trend across Western democracies to tighten control over online speech. In the European Union, the Digital Services Act imposes stringent content rules, with steep penalties for non-compliance. In the U.K., recent arrests over social media posts deemed offensive have sparked debates about free expression. In the U.S., government agencies have been criticized for pressuring tech firms to censor content labeled as misinformation. These efforts share a common goal: to align digital platforms with state-approved narratives.
Telegram’s defiance of these pressures makes it a prime target. Unlike platforms that have bowed to regulatory demands, Telegram remains committed to user privacy, operating from Dubai, beyond the reach of Western intelligence agencies. The arrest of Durov signals an attempt to nudge other platforms into compliance, raising the stakes for the future of free speech.
The West’s Contradictions
Telegram has been a vital tool for activists in authoritarian states, enabling somewhat secure communication in places like Belarus and Iran. By targeting Telegram, France risks aligning itself with the surveillance tactics of the regimes it publicly condemns. This hypocrisy erodes the moral authority of Western democracies, which have long championed the internet as a space for open dialogue.
The selective targeting of Telegram also exposes inconsistencies in enforcement. Why is Telegram singled out while other platforms hosting similar features face no such scrutiny? The answer lies in its refusal to integrate with the Euroatlantic security apparatus. Unlike Silicon Valley firms, Telegram does not provide backdoors, making it a unique challenge to the surveillance state.
Why This Matters
The Durov case is a pivotal moment for digital rights in the West. If France succeeds in pressuring Telegram to comply, it could set a precedent for governments to target any platform that prioritizes user privacy. Encrypted communication—a cornerstone of free expression and protection against state overreach—could be at risk. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who rely on secure platforms would face heightened vulnerability.
The case also highlights concerns about the rule of law. The opaque nature of the charges, the exorbitant bail, and the restrictive conditions suggest a process driven by political goals rather than justice.
The arrest of Pavel Durov is a wake-up call. Citizens, tech entrepreneurs, and policymakers must rally to defend the principles of free speech and privacy. Governments should be pressed to provide clear evidence for their accusations and to respect the independence of tech platforms. The fight for Telegram is a fight for the future of the internet—a space that should remain open, secure, and free from state control.