Image

At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.

    • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maloyse absolutely can:

      • eavesdrop above Alice’s shoulder
      • be an evil, militarily dressed maid on Bob Alice’s home
      • have remote administrative permissions on Bob’s phone
      • (“accidentally”) get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie’s desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
      • Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
      • Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench
      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, but we’re discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it’s harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?

        • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can’t. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.

          Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and “upgrade” their lawyer plan to “content vetter”, but as far as I know that hasn’t happened yet.

          • wahming@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t get what you’re trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.

            Yes, they’re a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action. Whether or not that’s fair is a pretty large topic, though I’m inclined to think so myself.