In an era in which national security and the protection of online privacy seem to clash more and more often, Telegram finds itself once again under the spotlight of the European political debate.
The founder of the popular messaging platform, Pavel Durov, recently praised the decision of the French National Assembly.
Which rejected a controversial bill aimed at weakening encryption systems, emphasizing that it was a risky move for the digital rights of citizens.
It was not just a regulatory battle, but yet another test of strength between those who defend the confidentiality of communications and the proponents of greater legislative control over messaging platforms.
The Russian founder commented on the matter through an official post on his Telegram channel, celebrating the choice of the parliamentarians as an act of “wisdom”.
Digital privacy under attack: Telegram at the center of the debate
The stance of Durov gains even more significance in light of his recent arrest in France. Accused by the authorities of having facilitated, albeit indirectly, criminal activities through Telegram, the CEO was released shortly after.
However, the episode has turned the spotlight on the platform and its privacy policies. For some European legislators, the fact that Telegram could become a safe haven for criminal organizations represents an unacceptable risk.
For others, however, securing communications through encryption is a guarantee of protecting civil rights. The heart of the debate focuses on the insertion of backdoors in the encrypted systems of messaging applications.
According to Durov, introducing a hidden backdoor intended for judicial authorities would open dangerous scenarios. It is not only a matter of principle, but also of technical security:
“It is technically impossible to ensure that only the police can access a backdoor. Once introduced, it can be exploited by other parties, from foreign agents to hackers.”
An opening created to defend citizens could turn into the perfect vulnerability to be exploited by malintenzionati, undermining the very foundations of digital security.
Ineffective Measures Against Crime
The founder of Telegram also dismantled the effectiveness of backdoors in the fight against crime. In his opinion, even if the main messaging apps were weakened through backdoors, criminals would still find alternative solutions to communicate.
There are dozens of minor applications, often little known but equipped with advanced encryption systems, which would represent an ideal alternative for those who want to avoid monitoring:
“Criminals could still communicate securely through dozens of smaller apps, becoming even more difficult to trace thanks to VPNs.”
In this scenario, the only ones to lose out would be the common users: deprived of their privacy, vulnerable to potential abuses of power or data breaches.
With a firm point, Durov reiterated the cornerstone principle of Telegram’s identity: the defense of user privacy. In over twelve years of activity, he stated, the platform has never disclosed the content of even a single private message.
Even in the presence of fully valid court orders, the only information that Telegram has made available are IP addresses and phone numbers, in line with what is required by the European Union’s Digital Services Act.
This balance allows the platform to collaborate with authorities without compromising the confidentiality of conversations. A fine line to walk, especially at a time when regulation of digital communications is at the center of the European political agenda.
However, France’s reluctance to give ground on the cryptography issue might not be enough.
A few weeks after the parliamentary vote, the Commissione Europea announced a new plan aimed at the widespread introduction of backdoors in encrypted messaging applications.
A signal, according to Durov, of an alarming trend: no country is truly safe from the risk of seeing the digital rights of its citizens compromised.
Telegram ready to withdraw: no compromise on the right to privacy
In any case, Europe, while establishing itself as a stronghold of civil rights, now seems inclined to allow more room for preventive surveillance in the name of public safety.
Yet, the price could be too high: the progressive erosion of individual freedom and the risk of a system where private communication becomes a luxury.
In a statement as powerful as it is provocative, Pavel Durov confirmed that Telegram is willing to take a step back rather than compromise with its corporate philosophy.
If forced to violate its own principles through changes imposed by law, the company would be ready to withdraw from those markets that do not respect the right to privacy.
A stance destined to shake not only governments but also millions of users: Telegram today has more than 900 million active users per month and represents an influential voice in the global discussion on cybersecurity.
Its potential exit from the European landscape would radically change the ecosystem of digital communications, depriving many citizens of an alternative considered safer compared to traditional messaging apps.
At the center of the debate remains an essential question: is it possible to find a balance between national security and personal freedom in the digital age? Or will one necessarily have to give way to the other?
The Durov-Telegram case in France is just the tip of the iceberg of a battle that involves the whole world, in an increasingly complex context where today’s political decisions will mark the boundaries of our freedom tomorrow.
While on one hand the need to counter terrorism and crime is real, on the other hand the imposition of overly intrusive measures risks undermining the cornerstone principles of democrazie occidentali.
The challenge is open, and while the European Union prepares the next legislative package, the protagonists of digital innovation like Durov are ready to defend the right to privacy of communications, by any means.