Telegram's Data Practices Under Scrutiny: A History of Controversies

[mostakimvip06]

Telegram, a messaging app lauded for its strong encryption and commitment to user privacy, has nevertheless faced significant public scrutiny regarding its data practices on several occasions. These controversies often highlight the tension between privacy, freedom of speech, and the platform's alleged use for illicit activities.


1. Lack of Default End-to-End Encryption for All Chats:
One of the most persistent criticisms revolves telegram data around Telegram's encryption model. While it offers "Secret Chats" with end-to-end encryption (E2EE), meaning only the sender and recipient can read the messages, this is not the default for regular cloud chats or group chats. Standard chats are encrypted in transit but are stored on Telegram's servers, where they can theoretically be accessed by Telegram itself. This contrasts with apps like WhatsApp, which offer E2EE by default for all personal conversations. Critics argue that this creates a false sense of security for many users who assume all their communications are fully private.





2. Cooperation with Law Enforcement and Transparency Reports:
Historically, Telegram has maintained a public stance of resisting government requests for user data, famously refusing to provide encryption keys to Russian authorities, leading to a temporary ban in Russia. However, this stance has evolved, leading to increased scrutiny.

Recent Surge in Data Handover: In late 2024, Telegram's transparency reports revealed a significant increase in the number of user data requests fulfilled, particularly in the United States, India, and the United Kingdom. This shift followed the brief arrest of CEO Pavel Durov in France in August 2024, on charges related to the platform's alleged complicity in criminal activities due to its perceived lack of cooperation with law enforcement. Durov later clarified that Telegram would hand over users' IP addresses and phone numbers to authorities with valid legal requests related to suspected criminal activities, a move he stated was aimed at deterring abuse of the platform. This change sparked considerable concern among privacy advocates who viewed it as a departure from Telegram's core principles.


Child Exploitation and Terrorism: Telegram has faced intense pressure from law enforcement agencies globally to address the use of its platform by terrorist groups, child exploiters, and criminal organizations. While Telegram claims to actively remove such content, the encrypted nature of "Secret Chats" and the sheer volume of public channels and groups have made it a challenging task, leading to ongoing debates about the platform's responsibility.

3. Data Breaches and Vulnerabilities:
Despite its security-focused reputation, Telegram has not been immune to data breaches and security vulnerabilities.

IP Address Leaks: Reports have emerged of instances where user IP addresses could be leaked, for example, by simply receiving a call from an unknown user on the app or through the "People Nearby" feature (which has since been discontinued in 2024 due to privacy concerns).
Third-Party Data Leaks via Bots: Telegram's open API and bot ecosystem have, in some instances, been exploited by malicious actors. There have been cases where sensitive user data, obtained from other sources, has been made available or sold through Telegram bots, leading to public concern and lawsuits (e.g., the Star Health Insurance data leak in India).

4. Content Moderation and Misinformation:
Telegram's relatively hands-off approach to content moderation, while appealing to free speech advocates, has also drawn criticism for allowing the proliferation of misinformation, extremist content, and hate speech, particularly in large public channels and groups. This has led to calls for greater transparency and more proactive measures from the platform.

These cases collectively illustrate the complex challenges Telegram faces in balancing its commitment to user privacy with the growing demands from governments and civil society to combat illicit activities and harmful content facilitated by its platform. The scrutiny is likely to continue as the app's global user base expands and regulatory pressures intensify.


Sources