Jump to content

CEO of Telegram arrested in France

legion

By legion
in Today's News

 Share

Recommended Posts

sock muppet

sock muppet

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Screamingeagle said:

i find it hard to belive the millitary uses public app for comunication.

 

But that is just me !

 

HUH?!?!?

 

https://t.me/wagner_group_pmc

 

Plus there are about a bazillion Q op channels on Telegram, which is the main reason for the arrest i suspect.

Q uestion:

How do you introduce the TRUTH to those still asleep?

 

https://qalerts.app/?n=2786

 

qalertsappn2786.webp.0f1911163fd2c35a0e06f525aeb65f7e.webp

 

And don't forget the Ukrainian Army threw a hissy fit when they were denied use of Starlink for front line battlefield operations, make sense? not in this back to front, inside out, upside down world it don't, but then again it is 5th gen warfare.

 

https://t.me/QTHESTORMM/25293

 

tmeQTHESTORMM25293.webp.f03135a20dfc886352bf903a38cba229.webp

 

I sense 69 tapes on the horizon, 🤭

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sock muppet

sock muppet

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Screamingeagle said:

that is just for the public ,what is ment to be hiden ,remains hiden 

 

imo,anyway

 

Hidden in plain sight, particularly when encryption is next to useless, the only thing left is to flood the space with psyops at every level, utilising everything and anything to hand considered useful, much like blanket bombing leaflets out of a plane, keeps everyone guessing for the next counter move, which can come from anywhere it would seem and not strictly with bullets and bombs, the pen is still mightier than the sword, it has after all descended into nothing more than a game, and as we all know, the only winning move is not to play, will still be extremely interesting what comes out of this move tho', 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites
legion

legion

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Craig Murray - (don't want to get into discussions about him and other values) - seems to know a thing or two about International Law - even if the Courts bend around them and /or blatantly ignore them. 

This is what he has to say - 

 

Pavel Durov and the Abuse of Law 

August 27, 2024  

 

The detention of Pavel Durov is being portrayed as a result of the EU Digital Services Act. But having spent my day reading the EU Services Act (a task I would not wish upon my worst enemy), it does not appear to me to say what it is being portrayed as saying.

EU Acts are horrible dense and complex, and are published as “Regulations” and “Articles”. Both cover precisely the same ground, but for purposes of enforcement the more detailed “Regulations” are the more important, and those are referred to below. The “Articles” are entirely consistent with this.

So, for example ARegulation 20 makes the “intermediary service”, in this case Telegram, only responsible for illegal activity using its service if it has deliberately collaborated in the illegal activity.

Providing encryption or anonymity specifically does not qualify as deliberate collaboration in illegal activity.

 

(20) Where a provider of intermediary services deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities, the services should not be deemed to have been provided neutrally and the provider should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation. This should be the case, for instance, where the provider offers its service with the main purpose of facilitating illegal activities, for example by making explicit that its purpose is to facilitate illegal activities or that its services are suited for that purpose. The fact alone that a service offers encrypted transmissions or any other system that makes the identification of the user impossible should not in itself qualify as facilitating illegal activities.

And at para 30, there is specifically no general monitoring obligation on the service provider to police the content. In fact it is very strong that Telegram is under no obligation to take proactive measures.

(30) Providers of intermediary services should not be, neither de jure, nor de facto, subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation, in compliance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation.

 

Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or a general active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures in relation to illegal content.

However Telegram is obliged to act against specified accounts in relation to an individual order from a national authority concerning specific content. So while it has no general tracking or censorship obligation, it does have to act at the instigation of national authorities over individual content.

 

(31) Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities, including law enforcement authorities, may order providers of intermediary services to act against one or more specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific information.

 

The national laws on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, in particular in a cross-border context, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the processing of those orders. Consequently, this Regulation should harmonise only certain specific minimum conditions that such orders should fulfil in order to give rise to the obligation of providers of intermediary services to inform the relevant authorities about the effect given to those orders.Therefore, this Regulation does not provide the legal basis for the issuing of such orders, nor does it regulate their territorial scope or cross-border enforcement.

 

The national authorities can demand content is removed, but only for “specific items”

 

51) Having regard to the need to take due account of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Charter of all parties concerned, any action taken by a provider of hosting services pursuant to receiving a notice should be strictly
targeted, in the sense that it should serve to remove or disable access to the specific items of information considered to constitute illegal content, without unduly affecting the freedom of expression and of information of recipients of
the service. Notices should therefore, as a general rule, be directed to the providers of hosting services that can reasonably be expected to have the technical and operational ability to act against such specific items. The providers of hosting services who receive a notice for which they cannot, for technical or operational reasons, remove the specific item of information should inform the person or entity who submitted the notice.

 

There are extra obligations for Very Large Online Platforms, which have over 45 million users within the EU. These are not extra monitoring obligations on content, but rather extra obligations to ensure safeguards in the design of their systems:

 

(79) Very large online platforms and very large online search engines can be used in a way that strongly influences safety online, the shaping of public opinion and discourse, as well as online trade. The way they design their services is generally optimised to benefit their often advertising-driven business models and can cause societal concerns. Effective regulation and enforcement is necessary in order to effectively identify and mitigate the risks and the societal and economic harm that may arise. Under this Regulation, providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines should therefore assess the systemic risks stemming from the design, functioning and use of their services, as well as from potential misuses by the recipients of the service, and should take
appropriate mitigating measures in observance of fundamental rights. In determining the significance of potential negative effects and impacts, providers should consider the severity of the potential impact and the probability of all
such systemic risks. For example, they could assess whether the potential negative impact can affect a large number of persons, its potential irreversibility, or how difficult it is to remedy and restore the situation prevailing prior to
the potential impact.

 

(80) Four categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth by the providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines. A first category concerns the risks associated with the dissemination of illegal
content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech or other types of misuse of their services for criminal offences, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services
prohibited by Union or national law, including dangerous or counterfeit products, or illegally-traded animals. For example, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systemic risk where access to illegal content
may spread rapidly and widely through accounts with a particularly wide reach or other means of amplification. Providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines should assess the risk of dissemination of illegal content irrespective of whether or not the information is also incompatible with their terms and conditions. This assessment is without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms or of the owners of websites indexed by very large online search engines for possible
illegality of their activity under the applicable law.

 

(81) A second category concerns the actual or foreseeable impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter, including but not limited to human dignity, freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, the right to private life, data protection, the right to non-discrimination, the rights of the child and consumer protection. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or by the very large online search engine or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. When assessing risks to the rights of the child, providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines should consider for example how easy it is for minors to understand the design and functioning of the service, as well as how minors can be exposed through their service to content that may impair minors’ health, physical, mental and moral development. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design
of online interfaces which intentionally or unintentionally exploit the weaknesses and inexperience of minors or which may cause addictive behaviour.

 

(82) A third category of risks concerns the actual or foreseeable negative effects on democratic processes, civic discourse and electoral processes, as well as public security.

 

(83) A fourth category of risks stems from similar concerns relating to the design, functioning or use, including through manipulation, of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines with an actual or foreseeable negative effect on the protection of public health, minors and serious negative consequences to a person’s physical and mental well-being, or on gender-based violence. Such risks may also stem from coordinated disinformation campaigns related to public health, or from online interface design that may stimulate behavioural addictions of recipients of the service.

 

(84) When assessing such systemic risks, providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines should focus on the systems or other elements that may contribute to the risks, including all the algorithmic systems
that may be relevant…

 

This is very interesting. I would argue that under Article 81 and 84, for example, the blatant use of both algorithms limiting reach and plain blocking by Twitter and Facebook, to promote a pro-Israeli narrative and to limit pro-Palestinian content, was very plainly a breach of the EU Digital Services Directive by deliberate interference with “freedom of expression and information, including media freedom and pluralism”.

 

The legislation is very plainly drafted with the specific intent of outlawing the use of algorithms to interfere with freedom of speech and public discourse in this way.

 

But it is of course a great truth that the honesty and neutrality of prosecution services in much more important to what actually happens in any “justice” system than the actual provisions of legislation.

Only a fool would be surprised that the EU Digital Services Act is being shoehorned into use against Durov apparently for lack of cooperation with Western intelligence services and being a bit Russian, and is not being used against Musk or Zuckerberg for limiting the reach of pro-Palestinian content.

 

It is also worth noting that Telegram is not considered to be a very large online platform by the EU Commission who have to date accepted Telegram’s contention that it has less than 45 million users in the EU, so these extra obligations do not apply.

 

If we look at the charges against Durov in France, I therefore cannot see how they are in fact compatible with the EU Digital Services Act.

Unless he refused to remove or act over specific individual content sprecified by the French authorities, or unless he set up Telegram with the specific intent of facilitating organised crime, I do not see how Durov is not protected under Articles 20 and 30 and other safeguards found in the Digital Services Act.

 

The French charges appear however to be extremely general and not to relate so particular specified communications. This is an abuse.

What the Digital Services Act does not contain is a general obligation to hand over unspecified content or encryption keys to police forces or security agencies. It is also remarkably reticent on “misinformation”.

 

Regulations 82 or 83 above obviously provide some basis for “misinformation” policing, but the Act in general relies on the rather welcome assertion that regulations governing what speech and discourse is legal should be the same offline as online.

 

So in short, the arrest of Pavel Durov appears to be pretty blatant abuse and only very tenuously connected to the legal basis given as justification. This is simply a part of the current rising wave of authoritarianism in western “democracies”.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/08/pavel-durov-and-the-abuse-of-law/ 

 

Edited by legion
Reasons
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
legion

legion

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It would seem that we are about to witness the prolonged theatrics of the rights and wrongs of privacy / encryption / safety / freedom etc etc..

 

All while hugely over paid professional Liars fight in Court playing with words. 

 

The ICJ and the ICC seem to be be toothless when deemed appropriate.. 

 

But British Courts can be seen to hold a man illegally if the USA decides it wants to "extradite" a Journalist on flimsey grounds for years.. 

 

Oh what games they play, while Rome burns 😏 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Screamingeagle

Screamingeagle

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, legion said:

what games they play, while Rome burns 😏 

 

Eve mentioned before ,Durov was WEF guest ,he was guest on few main MAM shows.....so 

 

he is either playing his role as instructed or he is very dumb

 

 

for now i see this situation as "caracter building" for him.....just like the Musk,Rogan that idiot Tate and so on!

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonTV

SimonTV

Posted
Posted (edited)

Did you see that DDOSecrets connection? they had a channel on telegram where they released torrents of what they have on their site and may more not sure. The channel is still up and they just released a bunch of isreali data and they shut one of the channels. But now we see the list of charges he is basically being charged for the activity of his customers on the platform, it is the platform argument. You don't think there is illegal activity taking place on whatsapp, of course there is. 

 

The reason they charge him is so they can manipulate him in to giving them a back door in to the system so they can index everything and monitor everyone. They know that telegram can encourage political opposition that the unpopular governments of the west can not control and this is a big risk for their power. This is the main reason they are after him because he has free speech principles and challenge their power.

Edited by SimonTV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Screamingeagle

Screamingeagle

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Katsika said:

The Execution of YouTube CEO and arrest of Telegram CEO are just the beginning

https://benjaminfulford.net/the-execution-of-youtube-ceo-and-arrest-of-telegram-ceo-are-just-the-beginning/

 

(I am not a subscriber to BF - his full report to non subs is available on Thursday)

this article portrais CIA and You Tube as good guys imo

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
octoplex

octoplex

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Screamingeagle said:

this article portrais CIA and You Tube as good guys imo

 

The CIA and YouTube are the SAME guys.

Google is a CIA project and it was seed-funded by the NSA.

 

Google own YouTube.

Therefore, YouTube is the CIA.

 

When a citizen watches YouTube, they are watching a CIA-owned 'television' network.

And who are the CIA? A massive pedophile-blackmail ring.

 

If you're looking for legitimate legal-sense or justification behind the arrest of the Telegram CEO, you will find none.

Governments are predicated on the rape of children; they arrest people who threaten their pedophile rings.

 

It's as simple as that.

Free-speech is poison to pedophiles. Therefore, free-speech is poison to governments.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Screamingeagle

Screamingeagle

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Katsika said:

why? - I don't get that at all.

CIA exposed that ytb co was "executed" because of censorship during the plandemic 

 

article implies that there is no censorship on ytb now

 

and CIA whatever they do has sinister intentions (title of the article screams "over reacting" imo)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
numnuts

numnuts

Posted
Posted
On 8/27/2024 at 1:32 AM, numnuts said:

Could this be a positive omen?

 

You were once BC, as in Before Christ, then you reappeared as legion again just before Konsta-Keir at least announced himself as Kaiser, if not yet the Anti-Christ. It seems prophetic to me. You must now lead us to victory against The Constipated One.

 

latest?cb=20180523025802&path-prefix=pro

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Screamingeagle said:

he is either playing his role as instructed or he is very dumb. for now i see this situation as "caracter building" for him.....just like the Musk,Rogan that idiot Tate and so on!

 

If there is any doubt to begin with, then time usually tells...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
octoplex

octoplex

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

You mean Alphabet inc (owners of Google) are run by the alphabet agencies?  Lol, hiding in plain sight 😀 

 

I'm glad you noticed this too!

The CIA not only abuse children, they gloat about it with insider-jokes like calling the holding company for their Google-project Alphabet Inc. The  term 'Alphabet Agencies' has long been a term to describe the CIA / FBI etc.

They rub this is the faces of the mass-formation-psychosis-NPCs.

 

Those who are interested in the 'occult' may find it intriguing that the first 100 'Alphabet Agencies' were apparently formed in 1933, using 3.3 billion of public funds. Thirty-three is obviously a known Freemason-pedophile gang-sign, the odd occurrence of 1933 and 3.3 billion may be a sick insider-nod. Or it may be nothing.

 

The first 100 'Alphabet' agencies included the FDA (remember them from the covid fraud?) and NASA.

 

Later these Alphabet Agencies were joined by the CIA (1947) and the FBI (1908).

 

As you noted, Google / Alphabet Inc. aren't  hiding their intent from those who can still focus on reality rather than the screen of their iPhone. But, until recently,  too many citizens were glued to their contact-tracing-devices; playing Angry Birds, or whatever pointless-bullshit has now replaced that on the home-screens-of-the-mindless.

 

Alphabet Inc. / Google / Youtube / Facebook / WhatsApp / Instagram etc are CIA owned and run.

 

Alphabet Inc. is the funniest one though. At some point soon, Google will reveal its ultimate-form, and make a holding-company for Alphabet Inc. and call it, "THE CIA".

 

Idiots will still use Gmail, even if the CIA rebrand the email suffix from @gmail.com to @CIA.com

 

You can use this to your advantage though; if you want to get a message to the CIA; especially disinformation. Just email it to someone with an @gmail account, and pretend you are making legitimate statements. It will get delivered direct to the CIA. Saves on postage. I have used this method often, and still do.

 

Once you figure out how the CIA works, you can play all kinds of games with them to burn-through their resources.

Pedophiles are fundamentally idiots, and I have enjoyed wasting the CIA's money, and time, by sending them on all kinds of meaningless and odd side-quests.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
octoplex

octoplex

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Campion said:

And a lot more too no doubt. Ok so taking it to the next level, who really owns and runs the CIA? 

 

A great question. My theory is two-fold:

 

1. The CIA is a self-sustaining organism, similar to a bacteria. Once a critical number of 'bacteria' are raping-children in a blackmail-ring, the 'organism' doesn't precisely need a 'leader'. It sustains itself like a fungus in a bathroom. While the room remains damp (citizens deny the activities of the CIA) the fungus has conditions for growth.

 

2. There is significant overlap between the British pedophile-Monarchy, Freemasons, and the CIA; MI-6 etc. The CIA  operates on a compartmentalized basis. Many CIA agents (like Freemasons) do not realize they are working for a pedophile-ring. This layer of idiots provide a superficial-legitimacy to the CIA. However, the inner-core of the CIA are likely under the instructions of Monarchy.

 

It seems probable that the Alphabet Agencies were created at the behest of the Monarchy, who was not pleased at all when,  in America, we threw their tea into the Boston Harbor and freed ourselves from the reign-of-the-pedophiles.

 

What appears to have happened after the War of Independence, is that a bunch of Freemason-liars gave the American people a Constitution and Bill of Rights which was designed to be upheld only on paper. In reality, the British Monarchy has spent every waking-hour since then trying to pedophile-ring its way back into the USA. It nearly managed it; but then we all woke up sufficiently to remember we have rights; and guns to uphold those rights

 

The Royal-Sympathizing. Freemason-pedophile-Founding-Fathers' big mistake was in believing that the philosophy they delivered to the Ameriican people on paper was merely a piece of paper. However, despite this plan, the constitution became a kind of religious-document that, while ridden over by the political classes, and burnt almost to cinders, could not actually be burned in the hearts of the American people.

 

The only pedophile ring I know that is more sinister than the CIA is the MI-6 pedophile-ring in the UK.

I can only assume that the CIA learned how-to-fuck-kids-in-organized-gangs from somewhere. The British Monarchy are the world's leading experts in this field, and their fingerprints are all over the CIA, from its very beginnings.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
legion

legion

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Campion said:

 

And a lot more too no doubt. Ok so taking it to the next level, who really owns and runs the CIA? 

 

Looking at the duel citizenships at the top of USA "National Securities".. 

I'd probably guess Mossad. 

 

Edited by legion
Reasons
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
legion

legion

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Durov is now out on a €5 million bail. Not to leave France and to report to the police twice a week while the investigation carries on.. 

 

Meanwhile, the EU have also started an investigation, claiming that Telegram are not being honest about the numbers of EU users. 

If more than 45 million people in the EU are in fact using it, then the platform and owners are held to account in a more extreme way.. 

 

Quote - 

" The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force earlier this year, requires so-called ‘Very Large Online Platforms’ (those with more than 45 million monthly users) to comply with a host of data protection and advertising-related rules.

Telegram claims to have 41 million monthly users in the EU. It issued a statement on Sunday, saying the company complies with EU laws and content-moderation policies, adding it is “absurd” to claim that Durov is responsible for the misuse of the platform by bad actors. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...