Michael Tsai:

It sounds like Telegram’s deceptive handling of encryption backfired—if it were actually encrypted they wouldn’t be able to moderate the content. Various governments try to get Apple to remove apps from the App Store, but they don’t seem to bother with iMessage because Apple’s hands are tied.

I don’t really understand why everyone is getting in the weeds discussing whether or not Telegram’s messages are actually encrypted or whether the company is able to read/moderate them. It sort-of sidesteps the issue that I have with the situation. And not just this specific situation with Telegram, but the broader state of online communication services.

Why should we allow governments to force companies to moderate the content shared through their services? Why should we be treating speech online any differently than speech spoken in person?

Should restaurants be forced to moderate the speech of their patrons? Should they be forced by their government to install microphones at each table to ensure their customers aren’t sharing misinformation or engaging in illegal activity? Of course not.

Should customers be told that they are only allowed to speak in a restaurant if they do so in code? Of course not.

I trust that the employees aren’t going to go out of their way to eavesdrop on my conversations and that same expectation should apply when I use a messaging service. Not because I plan on saying anything unseemly, but because it’s creepy.

Unfortunately, though, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. We now have the precedent that we’re all functionally wiretapped at all times. And we’re stuck having to argue with want-to-be-hall-monitors. The type of folks that will conjure up the most heinous, hypothetical scenarios, appealing to our emotions in order to get the surveillance that they want.

➝ Source: mjtsai.com