Clarisse McClellan on Nostr: In my opinion, the legal actions taken against the CEO of Telegram constitute a form ...
In my opinion, the legal actions taken against the CEO of Telegram constitute a form of persecution and represent a dangerous attack on privacy itself. Legally, for an action to be classified as a crime, it must satisfy certain criteria: legality (tipicidad), unlawfulness (antijuridicidad), and culpability (culpabilidad).
Firstly, **legality** requires that the conduct fits precisely within a defined criminal statute. Providing an encrypted messaging platform does not, in itself, violate any specific law. Encryption is a legitimate tool used to safeguard personal communications, and its implementation is not prohibited by law.
Secondly, **unlawfulness** means that the conduct is against the legal order and lacks any legal justification. In this case, the CEO's actions are aligned with the legal right to privacy. Encryption serves as a means to protect users' fundamental rights against unauthorized surveillance and data breaches. There is no unlawful intent in offering such protection.
Lastly, **culpability** involves the individual's intent or negligence in committing the act. The CEO is neither willfully nor negligently omitting any legal duties because he does not have access to the content shared on the platform—by design. This lack of knowledge is not a result of negligence but a deliberate feature intended to uphold user privacy. Since he cannot control or be aware of the illicit activities that might occur, attributing culpability is unfounded.
Holding the CEO responsible under these circumstances does not satisfy the necessary legal elements to constitute a crime. It sets a troubling precedent where individuals can be penalized despite lacking intent, knowledge, or control over the alleged unlawful activities.
Attributing legal responsibility to someone who neither knows nor can know about the specific content shared on their platform conflates the roles and responsibilities defined in criminal law. It undermines the principle that culpability requires a demonstrable intent or negligent action.
This legal overreach not only misconstrues the application of criminal law but also threatens the broader principles of freedom and privacy in the digital age. Punishing the CEO for maintaining user privacy could pressure other platforms to weaken their security measures, exposing users to increased risks.
This situation highlights a critical tension between law enforcement objectives and the protection of individual rights. While combating illegal activities is important, it should not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms or by misapplying legal principles. The pursuit of legal action against the CEO of Telegram risks eroding the foundational trust between users and platforms that prioritize privacy.
In my opinion, Pavel Durov’s actions do not meet the legal criteria to be considered a crime.
It's imperative that we defend the right to secure communication and resist efforts that unjustly target those who facilitate it. Legal systems should focus on actual wrongdoing rather than penalizing the tools that protect our fundamental rights.
Firstly, **legality** requires that the conduct fits precisely within a defined criminal statute. Providing an encrypted messaging platform does not, in itself, violate any specific law. Encryption is a legitimate tool used to safeguard personal communications, and its implementation is not prohibited by law.
Secondly, **unlawfulness** means that the conduct is against the legal order and lacks any legal justification. In this case, the CEO's actions are aligned with the legal right to privacy. Encryption serves as a means to protect users' fundamental rights against unauthorized surveillance and data breaches. There is no unlawful intent in offering such protection.
Lastly, **culpability** involves the individual's intent or negligence in committing the act. The CEO is neither willfully nor negligently omitting any legal duties because he does not have access to the content shared on the platform—by design. This lack of knowledge is not a result of negligence but a deliberate feature intended to uphold user privacy. Since he cannot control or be aware of the illicit activities that might occur, attributing culpability is unfounded.
Holding the CEO responsible under these circumstances does not satisfy the necessary legal elements to constitute a crime. It sets a troubling precedent where individuals can be penalized despite lacking intent, knowledge, or control over the alleged unlawful activities.
Attributing legal responsibility to someone who neither knows nor can know about the specific content shared on their platform conflates the roles and responsibilities defined in criminal law. It undermines the principle that culpability requires a demonstrable intent or negligent action.
This legal overreach not only misconstrues the application of criminal law but also threatens the broader principles of freedom and privacy in the digital age. Punishing the CEO for maintaining user privacy could pressure other platforms to weaken their security measures, exposing users to increased risks.
This situation highlights a critical tension between law enforcement objectives and the protection of individual rights. While combating illegal activities is important, it should not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms or by misapplying legal principles. The pursuit of legal action against the CEO of Telegram risks eroding the foundational trust between users and platforms that prioritize privacy.
In my opinion, Pavel Durov’s actions do not meet the legal criteria to be considered a crime.
It's imperative that we defend the right to secure communication and resist efforts that unjustly target those who facilitate it. Legal systems should focus on actual wrongdoing rather than penalizing the tools that protect our fundamental rights.