Telegram team says Durov did nothing wrong
(www.bbc.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
If the leader of telegram is responsible for everything people do via his platform, then the government should be responsible for everything bad that happens on their roadways, or on their airlines, or on their telephone lines or by use of their electrical grids or by use of their postal services. If a gun manufacturer is responsible for how someone misuses a firearm, then the government is responsible for how someone misuses the government's services and infrastructure and platforms. Make it all equal. Let's arrest the president because people used federal reserve notes to pay for crimes and facilitate crime. Or hold the federal government responsible for every crime committed within the national platform because we make believe that people who provide these platforms are personally responsible for the free will and decision of another person and how they misused freedom. Therefore the only solution is to restrict freedom, according to whoever justifies this arrest.
But this case is more complicated than that. It has to deal with encryption and the government possibly trying to prosecute or identify very bad people.
So it's not simple to make a judgement call.
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:
A sicko big nosed jew uses telegram to lure and rape a young white girl 10 years old. But it's encrypted and "muh privacy"
The government wants information to make the arrest. But you argue "muh privacy" muh encryption.
Then do you stick to your principle? Or do you make an exception to the rule so everyone can hunt down a pedo jew? Decisions decisions.
I imagine that lots of people have to face tough decisions that require them to compromise their own morals or principles at times because the choice is often between two bad choices or it is impossible to always stay true to two principles when both are put to the test in a scenario with limited options.
If it is a sin to lie, but lying saves your life, do you lie to live to protect your family and friends and live another day for retribution and redemption? Or do you die by your oath and your word?