This is an arrest that has caused a great deal of commotion on social media. Pavel Durov, founder and owner of the messaging app Telegram, was arrested by the French authorities on Aug. 24 shortly after his arrival at Le Bourget airport outside Paris. Released on Aug. 28 after four days of questioning, having been ordered to pay 5 million euros (around $5.5 million), he remains under strict judicial supervision, ordered to report to a police station twice a week and not to leave the French territory.
In a press release, the public prosecutor of Paris listed the charges against him as being the refusal to share information or documents with investigators when required by law, “complicity in managing an online platform to allow illicit transactions by an organized group,” drug trafficking, distribution of child sexual-abuse images, fraud, money-laundering by organised crime, and providing cryptology services aimed at ensuring confidentiality without a license.
According to the prosecutor, Telegram features in numerous police files on different offences and shows a near total absence of response to judicial requests. The French prosecutor stressed that other French and European departments had made the same assessment, which prompted this investigation on the potential criminal responsibility of its managers.
While Telegram has become in Cambodia one of the indispensable social media, whether for work or private use, the indictment of its owner-founder by the French justice system does not fail to raise questions among us, the users that we are.
Telegram is accused of accepting any content on its platform even if it’s of a criminal nature, and of refusing to forward information needed by the authorities for interceptions authorized by law. The founder of Telegram justifies himself by invoking the absolute respect of the freedom of expression and communication, like Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X, the former Twitter. This said, is he an accomplice of these criminal activities as the legal proceedings initiated in France mean to demonstrate.
The ordinary users that we are are thrilled—let’s be frank—to benefit from the protection of our personal data. The defenders of liberties that we are are also glad that government authorities cannot use the argument of alleged criminal activities to obtain the “necessary information” they need to identify opponents.
As long as those applications—our everyday companions—do not turn into superhighways of uncatchable international criminality or that they can be manipulated by hidden powers or private interests. Which makes one wonder.
So, where to put the cursor of freedom?
The boss of Telegram being questioned highlights the hidden side of the digital networks that only fools could ignore.
Above all, this is a reminder that the “user” is first a “citizen” in the sense of a person considered from the point of view of his political rights, and that it is as a “citizen” that he must address the intrusive presence of these networks known as “social” and the freedom they grant him as well as their owners.
.
