
Telegram bans public ISIS channels - dak1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/19/founder-of-app-used-by-isis-once-said-we-shouldnt-feel-guilty-on-wednesday-he-banned-their-accounts/?hpid=hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
======
envy2
Meanwhile, Telegram's cofounder Pavel Durov wrote about the Paris attacks on
Instagram yesterday:

"I think the French government is as responsible as ISIS for this, because it
is their policies and carelessness which eventually led to the tragedy. They
take money away from hardworking people of France with outrageously high taxes
and spend them on waging useless wars in the Middle East and on creating
parasitic social paradise for North African immigrants. It is a disgrace to
see Paris in the hands of shortsighted socialists who ruin this beautiful
place. I hope they and their policies go away forever and this city will once
again shine in its full glory – safe, rich and beautiful."

[https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/?taken-
by=durov](https://www.instagram.com/p/-MrPWGr7aL/?taken-by=durov)

~~~
francoisfeugeas
Excuse my French but that man is a piece of shit. Victim blaming at its finest
and a totally uncalled for, totally irrelevant, very misinformed political
opinion.

I do realize I'm on HN and this is not the place to discuss this, but I had to
react as this hits a nerve (obviously).

If you think the French welfare state is a production of our current socialist
government, newsflash: it's not. As for France being a paradise for
immigrants, we can't even get the Syrians refugees to come here to fulfill the
quotas Europe imposed on us.

I can't find any more words to say how disgusted I am by that comment.

~~~
yup123
Did he blame the victims? or do you really believe that the french government
is the victim? and not the citizens of paris.

"I think the French government is as responsible as ISIS for this"

~~~
francoisfeugeas
He did blame the victims.

France is a democracy. The French government has been elected and represents
the people of France.

Plus all the things he refers to are not especially the doing of our current
government. I do not like our current president or the current ruling party,
but come on...

~~~
yup123
"France is a democracy"

But that does not mean they're a victim, if you're a french citizen who
elected a government that then went on to do ABC that does not mean that you
as a citizen supported that.

"represents the people of France"

What does that mean though? does that mean that if a government that i elected
goes on to do awful things, represent me?

Governments do horrific things their citizens don't support from time to time,
i don't think that the US government represented all americans when they
decided to drop atomic bombs in 1945.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _i don 't think that the US government represented all americans when they
> decided to drop atomic bombs in 1945_

Offtopic but I wish this historical meme would die. Atomic bombs were probably
the most humane option that was on the table; if you want to talk about
atrocities America inflicted on Japan, let's talk about firebombings.

~~~
tyrion
atomic bombs the most humane option? ... Could you elaborate on that?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Since backing off the war completely wasn't a realistic option, they basically
had a choice between nuking Japan until it surrenders, or prolonging the war
on land and sea, and the latter was estimated to take much more lives on both
sides.

I'm not saying that the US chose to go with the first option out of altruistic
reasons, but dropping the atomic bombs wasn't an atrocity compared with the
usual firebombing, _and_ saved a lot of lives that would be lost if the war
continued.

------
fabulist
This thread seems to be generating a great deal of redundancy.

If you're here to ask, "How come they were able to ban channels when Telegram
is supposed to be private?", as sk4kerto mentioned channels are a feature for
broadcasting information to the public.

If you're wondering how Telegram works, here is their documentation.

[https://core.telegram.org/mtproto](https://core.telegram.org/mtproto)

~~~
sneak
or just defer to the experts

[https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58224970928632627...](https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582249709286326272)

[https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58291636575066931...](https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582916365750669312)

[https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58224562510382694...](https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582245625103826944)

~~~
guelo
That's not expert discussion, that's just low infrmation ranting. It is more
informative to note that the most wanted terrorists in the world were using it
to communicate publicly with impunity.

~~~
tptacek
Do you really want to stick up for Telegram's cryptography? That's essentially
what you're doing by rebutting that comment.

There are much better links he could have provided, I agree, but Matthew Green
is not a low-information ranter.

------
cantagi
Alarmist article. Telegram is banning ISIS's public channels, not snooping on
and censoring their private communications. That is moderation of a public
facing platform which isn't an invasion of privacy and doesn't necessarily
compromise Telegram's security.

~~~
mc32
They raise the question of the about face from its founder who vowed never to
change policy regarding communication. They paint a picture of Russian govt
previously pressuring him to release VK info on Ukranian opposition, etc. And
the somewhat incongruence between previous interviews positions on
communications and today's moves.

------
jsmcgd
Unfortunately by closing these channels it seems we have lost an opportunity
for dissenting voices to reach ISIS supporters. If I was involved in the soft
war against ISIS I don't think I would have wanted this to happen. The more
they are driven underground the less influence moderate positions will have.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not expecting any miracles, that everyone could be
talked off the ledge but some fraction definitely could. Perforating their
echo chamber at least provides an opportunity to inject FUD into their
discussions, undermine other's authority, play people off against each other,
gives an opportunity to try and identify culprits, gives insights into what
they are currently thinking, possibly targets that have been discussed, what
the common recruitment strategies are etc. There are a lot of amateurs in
their ranks (however dangerous) and these channels are probably a rich source
of intelligence.

~~~
briandear
These people don't care about moderate voices. It would be like convincing
Lenin to embrace capitalism. If cutting the head off someone or raping
children is a normal course of business, some moderate voice isn't going to
make a single difference.

~~~
scrollaway
You're mistaking the leaders and the brainwashed.

Underestimating or dehumanizing your opponent is a sure-fire way to lose a
war. These people don't get supporters by merely "waiting for the crazy to hop
in". They brainwash the weak. It's far more effective to weaken or remove the
framework that allows this brainwashing to happen, than to lump everybody into
the crazybucket.

------
austenallred
It's interesting to compare the terms of use - it looks like they had to
update them.

Old:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022238/https://telegram....](https://web.archive.org/web/20151117022238/https://telegram.org/faq#q-wait-0-o-do-
you-process-take-down-requests-from-third-parties)

New: [https://telegram.org/faq#q-wait-0-o-do-you-process-take-
down...](https://telegram.org/faq#q-wait-0-o-do-you-process-take-down-
requests-from-third-parties)

~~~
BuildTheRobots
not sure if you've got the wrong archive.org url or if I'm just being entirely
thick, but the two pages seem to contain the same content.

~~~
krotton
I've diff-ed the two and they basically mentioned channels explicitly in a few
places.

< But sticker sets and bots on Telegram are publicly available. [...]

\---

> But sticker sets, channels and bots on Telegram are publicly available.
> [...]

< [...] we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public
content in Telegram (sticker sets, bots) [...]

\---

> [...] we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public
> content in Telegram (sticker sets, bots, channels) [...]

< User-uploaded stickers sets and bots by third-party developers are not part
of core Telegram UI. [...]

\---

> User-uploaded stickers sets, channels and bots by third-party developers are
> not part of core Telegram UI.

< [...] While we do block terrorist (e.g. ISIS-related) bots, we will not
block bots that peacefully express alternative opinions.

\---

> [...] While we do block terrorist (e.g. ISIS-related) bots and channels, we
> will not block bots that peacefully express alternative opinions.

< [...] Please include the phone number you use on Telegram in international
format in your message.

\---

> [...] If you’re using a virtual number of any kind, please also mention VOIP
> in the subject line. Don't forget to include the phone number you use on
> Telegram in international format in your message.

------
r0naa
The current situation in France is making me very conflicted about privacy and
public liberties.

I am a strong believer of the value of privacy for a modern society. I even
want to dedicate my life to help building privacy enhancing technologies and
censorship-resistant networks. Because I think that an "advanced" world can
only thrive if information is unrestricted, or unstoppable.

But today I face a dilemma. The dilemma of choosing between freedom and
privacy, and security.

I am French, and have a lot of family in Paris. My brother lives two streets
from the Bataclan and lost one of his friends. Some of my friends lost 5,
sometimes 10 people that night. Imagine loosing two thirds of your group of
friends in a few hours. This is frightening.

When I look at France. I see a great country, with a lot of humanity and when
I look at the French, I see a freedom loving people who share a love for good
food, good music and generally speaking, the good things that life has to
offer.

But I also see the failure of my country in the suburbs. With entire
neighborhoods that have been left uncontrolled by the government at some
point, and who never went back to that state despite lots of efforts. These
neighborhoods are rigged with crime and violence, and have been a fertile
environment for religious lunatics to grow stronger for the last twenty years.

And I have mixed feelings. The French National Assembly has extended the state
of urgency to three months. Strengthening the regalian power of the state and
weakening the counter-balancing power of the Judicial branch.

Hundreds of raids have been coordinated through France, most being in those
"uncontrolled areas". And it seems to work.

Which prompt me to think that this might be for the better. For the most part
of my "short" life, I have thought that a people should never "trade freedom
for security". But I have come to the, perhaps wrong, conclusion that there
can't be "freedom without security" either.

Maybe we should give up some freedom to let the "good guys" crackdown hard on
the "bad guys".

But maybe it isn't. Maybe fear is clouding my judgement.

~~~
nitrogen
I'm very sorry to hear about the losses your friends and family have endured.
My comments below are not meant to dismiss those losses.

So, here are some questions to ask if you want to prevent fear from clouding
your judgment of the security vs. freedom question:

If the authorities knew where they needed to raid already, why didn't they
raid there before the attacks?

On the other hand, if they have all of the surveillance we read about in the
news and more, why weren't the attacks prevented? How will more of the same
surveillance work any better than the massive amount already in place?

Finally, how do you trust the authorities claims now that their emergency
techniques work, if you didn't trust their techniques before?

Again, none of this is meant to belittle the losses sustained or the
seriousness of the attacks. But I believe that terrorism is a social and
political problem first, a criminal problem second, and a surveillance problem
least. So the solutions need to be long-term social and political moves to
counteract the economic and ideological conditions that breed terrorists.

------
mapt
Why on Earth would we want to ban ISIS channels rather than closely tracking
ISIS channels for opsec failures and dropping bombs or SWAT teams on
participants?

~~~
msoad
Telegram has end-to-end encryption. It's impossible

~~~
babuskov
How hard would be for them to MITM their own app?

~~~
Gladdyu
They shouldn't be able to do so but even if they could they wouldn't do it.
It'd show that the claims they make on the security of their product are
invalid.

------
gloves
Ultimately, data is the greatest currency in the world today. Everything can
be recorded and analysed. But the question is, who owns it, and at what point
should it become property of those who wish to protect (or cynically -
control) us.

The issues here seem to come from a world that has moved beyond scrambling
government's legislation to keep up with data. And a government's perception
that they have the right to access whatever they want.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Data can't be owned. It's just bits, and they may be copied freely.

~~~
gloves
Yes, I agree it's just bits.

But, ultimately people will inevitably try to claim ownership, control it, use
it, and prevent others from using it. Equally, those who create it will wish
for it to remain private.

~~~
jsprogrammer
>But, ultimately people will inevitably try to claim ownership, control it,
use it, and prevent others from using it.

And, they will fail.

>Equally, those who create it will wish for it to remain private.

Maybe. Maybe not. People may wish all day long.

------
jdp23
Shane Harris' looked at ISIS' use of Telegram in the Daily Beast a few days
ago. [1] And Marcy Wheeler's post yesterday [2] relates John Brennan's
complaints about the challenges encryption is causing for law enforcement
"especially in Europe". Marcy writes:

"If terrorists were using WhatsApp (which a lot of the fearmongering focused
on), the metadata, at least, would be available via Facebook. But since
Telegram is not a US company, it cannot be obliged under Section 702 of FISA,
and that surely creates just the kind of gap Brennan was talking about."

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/this-is-
isi...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/this-is-isis-new-
favorite-app-for-secret-messages.html)

[2] [https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/11/18/brennan-was-
probably-t...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/11/18/brennan-was-probably-
talking-about-the-telegram-prism-gap-as-much-as-encryption/)

~~~
aw3c2
How does it matter what the US can do? There are other countries in the world
and the US are not the world police who should be able to snoop on any data of
people everywhere. Spy on your own citizens.

~~~
fulafel
EU spooks outsource domestic spying to NSA/five eyes systems. See recent
Swedish XKEYSCORE news etc.

------
gohrt
Why is "telegram" and "encryption" ever mentioned together, except to say
"telegram uses a phony imitation of encryption" ?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940665](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940665)

~~~
dijit
Even if MTProto is insecure I want someone I trust to tell me so.

it's very likely insecure but the amount of negative press on the subject of
telegram is worrying, would you rather people use whatsapp?

I know they're not touting themselves as the bastion of security (like
telegram does) but I'd rather people used telegram because at the very least
the protocol is open source, and once they have federation and a released
server it will be possible to improve on the security probably.

~~~
epimenov
Basically they're not following cryptographic best practices. And their
defense of it is flimsy at best.

I you want easy-to-use secure messenger you should use Signal.
([https://whispersystems.org/](https://whispersystems.org/))

~~~
free2rhyme214
Bingo but Telegram is fast.

Here's Snowden's response:
[https://twitter.com/snowden/status/661313394906161152?lang=e...](https://twitter.com/snowden/status/661313394906161152?lang=en)

------
lmm
The fact that Telegram even has the ability to ban channels shows that it was
too centralized to be truly secure.

~~~
sz4kerto
Of course this is not true. \- distributed vs. centralized architecture and
security are not directly related. A centralized architecture with end-to-end
encryption can be very secure; a decentralized, non-encrypted solution can be
very insecure \- Telegram offers end-to-end between two parties \- Telegram
also offers 'channels', i.e. broadcasting. Nobody claimed that these are 100%
confidential.

------
lloydde
Full text of Telegram post? When I try to visit the link in the Washington
Post article, I'm asked for my phone number.

~~~
thecatspaw
it is asking you for your phone number because it is a message they
broadcastet through telegram.

That said, here's the text:

We were able to identify and block these public ISIS channels thanks to your
reports. Thank you! Here's an explanation of the blocking process from our
FAQ:

All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We
do not process any requests related to them. But sticker sets, channels, and
bots on Telegram are publicly available. If you find sticker sets or bots on
Telegram that you think are illegal, please ping us at abuse@telegram.org.

Our mission is to provide a secure means of communication that works
everywhere on the planet. In order to do that in the places where it is most
needed (and to continue distributing Telegram through the App Store and Google
Play), we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public
content (sticker sets, bots, and channels) within the app. For example, we can
take down sticker sets that violate intellectual property rights or porn bots
in countries where pornography is illegal.

User-uploaded stickers sets, channels, and bots by third-party developers are
not part of the core Telegram UI. Whenever we receive a complaint at
abuse@telegram.org regarding the legality of public content, we perform the
necessary legal checks and take it down when deemed appropriate.

Please note that this does not apply to local restrictions on freedom of
speech. For example, if criticizing the government is illegal in a country,
Telegram won‘t be a part of such politically motivated censorship. This goes
against our founders’ principles. While we do block terrorist (e.g. ISIS-
related) bots and channels, we will not block anybody who peacefully expresses
alternative opinions.

FAQ link: [https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-
tele...](https://telegram.org/faq#q-there-39s-illegal-content-on-telegram-how-
do-i-take-it-down)

------
seren
Naive question I have about telegram. Even if the end to end connection is
encrypted, you know the ip address of both sender and receiver ? So you have a
fairly good idea where the packet are going ?

Basically even if the messages are secure, Telegram owns all the metadata,
i.e. who is speaking with whom, at which frequency etc ?

~~~
free2rhyme214
This is why Edward Snowden uses Signal and not Telegram.

[https://twitter.com/snowden/status/661313394906161152?lang=e...](https://twitter.com/snowden/status/661313394906161152?lang=en)

~~~
pfg
Is Signal actually any different from Telegram on the topics OP mentioned? I
know their crypto is supposed to be way better, but I don't know about the
rest.

------
tptacek
Related:

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/encryption-app-telegram-
pro...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/encryption-app-telegram-probably-
isnt-as-secure-for-terrorists-as-isis-thinks)

------
ck2
It's a bit crazy how internet services are being blamed.

Why not the smartphone maker?

Or even better why not the weapons manufacturers, or bullet makers or bomb
making material manufacturers?

I mean really, how many bullets are going to end up in the hands of "good
guys" vs "bad guys" (this is sarcasm relating to how people use apps being
abused for wrong purposes).

------
lectrick
Has banning anything provably resulted in a long-term good? Because all it
seems to do is 1) push it underground 2) hurt communication.

I think Prohibition is a case study in banning vs. regulating

------
bahruzg
Telegram itself is open source. Which means anyone with some technical
knowledge can build it from the source. So banning some channels doesn't seem
wise enough.

------
jamisteven
Considering we killed off the largest single intelligence asset on terrorism
in the world (OBL), instead of interrogating him, this doesnt surprise me at
all.

~~~
notahacker
What on earth makes you think Osama Bin Laden would start detailing everything
he knew to his captors, assuming he allowed them to take him alive in the
first place? I'm not seeing much benefit to keeping evidently successful
propaganda channels alive either.

------
pussinboots
when are american companies like twitter going to step up and do the same?
isis's use of social media to spread their anti-american propaganda should not
be protected by freedom of speech

~~~
eachro
Freedom of speech doesn't disallow private companies from banning
speech/expression.

------
zobzu
As usual, great but also shows how things work. If one day they want to block
your conversations, or whomever, they can and will as well.

------
grandalf
The censor as hero... a new trope ushered in by the attacks on Paris.

~~~
fabulist
The article was not about praising or condemning Telegram, but reporting on an
incredibly sudden shift in policy.

~~~
biafra
No. The article was definitely about condemning Telegram. Otherwise it would
have mentioned that other people producing stuff (for example: Cars, Open
Source Software etc.) used by terrorists also sleep fine.

~~~
fabulist
I really doubt Washington Posts' sympathies lie with poor ISIS because they
lost some social media accounts. If they were condemning anyone (which they
weren't), it was Pavel Durov himself, not Telegram.

This piece was about Durov's sudden 180 degree turn from "I will not censor
anyone under any circumstance" to "I will have to censor some people under
some circumstances, but not when it counts." It also recalls similar events at
VKontakte, where he refused to give up data until he was forced to leave the
country (presumably leaving VKontakte vulnerable to the government).

(Edited to clarify that I meant it was Pavel Durov as opposed to his company.)

------
mtgx
Sigh, this makes Telegram look "guilty" now, and worst of all, it will put
pressure on other app developers now to do the same. Next we'll hear some
Congressman says that Google and Apple should be monitoring their apps for
"terrorist talk" and report to authorities in real-time. But I guess Facebook
has already been doing that for years.

[http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-scans-chats-and-posts-
for-...](http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-scans-chats-and-posts-for-criminal-
activity/)

Let's wait until this blows over, but next year we really need to start
pushing companies to adopt end-to-end encryption, or vote with our feet
(Signal, etc).

------
norswap
I don't know Telegram, but if they know that terrorists are using them, it's
probably not that secure.

~~~
sz4kerto
As mentioned in my other comment below: channels are for broadcasting. You can
create public channels. Of course a public channel will be public.

Why do you comment if you have zero information?

~~~
norswap
I thought it was one of those who focused on encryption.

