(Disclaimer) ** This article is a reflection of the gravitas of the ongoing criminal activities being carried out. It includes factual information collated through OSINT. The author wishes to keep their urge to launch into an unprompted and unwarranted rant on the aforementioned topic under control. The author has put in considerable efforts to keep the tonality of the article neutral. Well, that is something for the readers to decide.
Introduction
Ever since the startling arrest of the co-founder, Pavel Durov, the internet is pummeled with speculations around the platform’s future and the much-needed glare on the subject—should a messenger app really turn a user’s data to a government, having promised end-to-end encryption to its consumers?
Before answering this contentious question, it is important for the readers to understand the meaning of these technology and business enclave terms and also to understand the reason behind the founder’s arrest.
End-to-end Encryption:
The term “end-to-end encryption”, in its most raw form, can be explained as a method of securing correspondences/communication between parties so that they remain completely private. No third party can have any form of access to the communication between the two parties. When any two parties communicate (send a message to one another), messages get encrypted on their respective devices into a format (get scrambled, quite like your egg) that only the two parties can understand. This happens with a key that only the two parties can share. The encrypted message travels through the network to the recipient. Once reached, it gets decrypted, turning it into its original format using the shared key. The scrambled egg turns into the original egg with the shell intact. During this entire voyage of the message, it remains unreadable to anyone who might intercept it, like any service, hackers or other intermediary bodies.
Cause of Arrest:
Pavel Durov was detained on August 24, 2024, from the French Airport, Le Bourget, outside Paris as a direct fallout of the judicial inquiry that opened up in July. It involved 12 criminal allegations, mainly circling around minimal moderation of Telegram and the horrendous activities being conducted by a large number of groups as its direct consequence. Being an OSINT expert, specializing in the Crypto domain, I have encountered several thousand illicit open groups/channels being created on a daily basis and have come to realize that Telegram, since its inception, has served as a capital of the most preposterous of activities.
These channels are referenced to by big Crypto Intelligence giants as a part of their investigations. The range of topics/causes covered by such channels is varied. Ranging from the Gaza-Israel conflict and direct crypto donations for the same cause to money laundering and the distribution of narcotics, the list is endless. Another concerning topic is how extensively it is being used to share uncensored pro-peace and opposite views to large audiences. Not that I wish to undermine the gravity of the presence of channels that support the cause of terrorism; sharing millions of religious scripts to deceive people into supporting their nefarious cause. That is another topic that I wish to delve into in the later stages of our publications. Just for reference, I am adding two images. The first one is from al Pro-Al Ikhwa channel, which asked for donations for ‘Distribution of Snack bags for Eid Al Fitr to a refugee camp in Idlib Syria.
Similarly, the second image from another open source channel, allegedly created to support women and children in Al-Hol camps. There is a featured message soliciting donations to help alleviate the suffering of those held in the camps.
Although it is quite contentious to question the legitimacy of such donation channels, the big giants of investigations and numerous articles from different sources, including those widely prevalent in the research arena, have found direct or indirect links to T-financing. The similar analysis was curated and published by Chainalysis.
These images are just two drops in the cesspool which is infiltrated with another illicit category-
Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material
Telegram has consistently refused to comply with either the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) or the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) — both of which work with most online platforms to find, like Meta, to report and remove such material. As a direct consequence, Telegram has faced increased scrutiny from governments and law enforcement agencies, raising concerns about the platform’s misuse by individuals seeking to share CSAM without detection and much-needed apprehension.
We have used the data set provided by Suojellaanlapsia.fi in one of its research reports.
Let’s have a look at the analysis of a set of 358 respondents who answered one of the nine questions- “What messaging app have you used to search, view, or share CSAM?” These 358 respondents chose multiple options from a list of social messaging apps.
Although, it is nearly impossible to come up with the actual number of users trying to gain access, sell or buy CSAM content on Telegram, as the platform has never cooperated with IWF.org and NCMEC, as mentioned earlier. The result of the survey is staggering. Following is the graph representing the same. The last two digits of calculated percentages have been truncated. Telegram wins the trophy in the survey question.
Due to Telegram’s convoluted “distributed” infrastructure, vagueness of the concept of private vs public content, self-destructing chats feature and obviously, the shocking lack of moderation has protected these lecherous actors who are seeking such egregious content. While researching, I have devoted hours to studying how the vendors of CSAM sell their material to people. Many try to gather an audience through a group with some vague title and ask the members to directly/privately contact either the admin or would provide the details of the vendor in the group itself. Many such deals are done in cryptocurrency. In order to back my stance, I am attaching an image of an open CSAM channel on telegram.
The company claims to have 950 million users spread across the globe and the app grants them permission to broadcast content to up to 2 million people. Imagine how rapidly the illicit content could spread like a virus among the users.
Another Silk Road?
As we further go down the road of systematically investigating the exploitation of Telegram at the hands of illicit actors, let’s mention how it has become an operational center for Scheduled I and Schedule II drugs like fentanyl, Rohypnol (Date rape drug), ecstasy, LSD (also referred to as acid), and alike. The structure of the market and payment methods are quite similar to what we have seen in the case of CSAM distribution.
Now to address the question of whether a messaging app should hand over its users’ data to a government, it’s essential to balance user privacy with the need to address illegal activities.
In the case of Telegram, while the platform does have mechanisms to shut down channels flagged by users, there is currently no way to automatically flag content in private, end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) chats. This limitation is inherent to E2EE. Not even the service providers can access the content in the private chats.
However, addressing the absolute need to prevent the distribution of harmful content while respecting privacy is a complex challenge. Telegram and other similar platforms could explore alternative approaches, such as:
Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms:
Improving tools for users to report suspicious activities or content, making it easier for the platform to review and take necessary action demanded.Collaboration with Law Enforcement:
Establishing clearer guidelines and procedures for cooperating with law enforcement while protecting user privacy, especially in cases involving serious criminal activities.Content Moderation in Public Spaces:
Continuing to strengthen content moderation in public channels and groups where transparency is higher and where problematic content can be more easily identified and addressed.
Ultimately, it is incorrect to say that the platform cannot be held responsible for the user’s activities. It should not be built with a limited vision of serving a user’s purpose but also to serve a greater cause. That’s what an ideal platform should have in its list of goals. Stringing and quoting sentences like, household knives can either be used to cut vegetables or turn someone into one, is appalling. If you build a social platform, consider the possibilities of its varied usage, hold some accountability for the mishaps and lastly ensure that the platform is equipped with ethical safeguards because the true measure of success does not depend on the number of users (popularity), but in its responsibility to protect and help the society.