101

Telegram Reportedly "Ready to Fight Piracy" According to Govt. Official * TorrentFreak (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 68 points 2 months ago

Too bad Telegram isn't as ready to fight Nazi propaganda on their service, but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago

but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.

Can you provide a link for this? Interested in reading about it

load more comments (41 replies)

[-] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago

These fucks just can't stop spoiling everything for people

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

RIP OnlyFans leaks on telegram

[-] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

So far, this isn't much of anything.

Telegram already closes public channels reported for copyright violations.

Some excerpts from this post:

Compared to other platforms, we do not see the seriousness of Telegram to cooperate.

. . .

In May 2023, progress appeared to be going in the wrong direction. Telegram was reportedly refusing to cooperate with the Ministry of Communications and Digital on the basis it did not wish to participate in any form of politically-related censorship.

. . .

With no obviously public comment from Telegram on the matter, it’s hard to say how the social platform views its end of what appears to be an informal agreement.

Telegram will be acutely aware, however, that whatever it gives, others will demand too. That may ultimately limit Telegram’s response, whatever it may be, whenever it arrives – if it even arrives at all.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] TheHobbyist 12 points 2 months ago

How much responsibility would a service like Signal have, if they were to inadvertently host a private group for pirated content? I believe signal groups can have up to 1000 members, and these members can be pretty anonymous given the need to only share an ephemeral username which can not be linked to a phone number or any other identity? Can they claim plausible deniability and not do anything?

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

IANAL and all the other anals, but my understanding is Signal wouldn't be liable and wouldn't have to do anything. They designed their service so they can't know the content of the messages, so if a third party Maloyse (see what I'm doing there?) is reporting a message between Alice and Bob that Maloyse thinks to be illegal, Signal would be within legal grounds to bring into question how did M got that message, and it can't be used as proof against Signal because there is no legal mechanism by which Signal could have acquired that message and act upon it - in fact, Signal has grounds to suspect Maloyse is crafting those messages, since neither Alice nor Bob have reported such message.

This post is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Feel free to contact me to negotiate for an alternative license.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

This is the correct answer. Both Alice and Bob approve.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

In a group chat, M wouldn't be a 3rd party.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Maloyse absolutely can:

eavesdrop above Alice's shoulder
be an evil, militarily dressed maid on ~~Bob~~ Alice's home
have remote administrative permissions on Bob's phone
("accidentally") get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie's desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Yes, but we're discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it's harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can't. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.

Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and "upgrade" their lawyer plan to "content vetter", but as far as I know that hasn't happened yet.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I don't get what you're trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.

Yes, they're a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don't take action. Whether or not that's fair is a pretty large topic, though I'm inclined to think so myself.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action.

And the action Signal can take is pretty clear: "Okay thanks for reporting, feel free to file a lawsuit against Alice and or Bob instead, have a nice day." Remember: even if Signal had Charlie's credentials to view the chat, unless Charlie is an admin of the chat Signal can't do anything other than log Charlie off the group. Plus each participant still has their own message store. So by this point Signal has complied with the law. It's literally Section 230.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not sure why you're citing US law when we're discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

What if that happens on Session? Can the nodes operators be sued even though they have no access to the content?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Telegram is shit anyway.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

But good for copyrighted stuff

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Not even that, half the stuff you get there signs you into a rusbotnet.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I agree, but why do you think so?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Russian software, no end to end encryption by default, a smear campaign against signal, being based in Dubai and censoring LGBT stuff, being more and more for profit (wich wouldn't be that bad when they wouldn't be obnoxious about it) and probably more.

E: seems like i offended some stans.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments