Telegram to share user IP and phone data with authorities
Telegram updates privacy policy to disclose IPs and phone numbers for valid legal requests, expanding beyond terrorism cases.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Telegram to share user IP and phone data with authorities
Telegram's privacy policy has changed. Pavel Durov announced an update that effectively turns the app into a collaborator with judicial authorities: IP addresses and phone numbers of users who abusa its rules "may be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests." Until now, this exception was reserved for confirmed terrorism suspects. The change is not cosmetic: it affects any incivil proceeding involving illegal activities that also breach terms of service.
The most troubling detail is not what is stated, but what is removed. Telegram deleted from its conditions the declaration that it had never revealed IP addresses or phone numbers to authorities. The list of "illegal goods and services" is not exhaustive, leaving room for interpretation. Transparency reports will now be published quarterly instead of twice a year.
What Telegram prohibits now and what it does not
Beyond illegal prono content, spam, scams, and violence promotion, the platform prohibits "engaging in activities that are illegal in most countries." This includes child abuse, drugs, weapons, and forged documents. The wording is deliberately vague, which has raised alarms.
The prevailing view is that the real filter is not the Penal Code, but the platform's internal rules set by Durov. Those who openly infringe them are exposed. The question remains where that boundary lies and who draws it. Some argue the change responds to pressure trinc Durov's arrest in France, with bail estimated at €50 million. Others point to a less heroic motive: a potential IPO requires a credible moderation narrative.
Telegram encryption does not protect channels
It is worth clarifying a common misunderstanding. Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted by default. Only Secret Chats are. Channels and normal chats are encrypted up to Telegram servers, meaning anyone with server access can read everything. The open-source Signal protocol is the secure messaging standard, which Telegram rejected.
This architecture explains why the company can hand over IPs and phones without breaking anything: it never promised not to have them. Practically, download channels — movies, series, 3D printing files — are the first candidates for removal. Also news channels about Telegram itself, which have stopped appearing in searches despite abusa no rules.
Search moderation already underway
Durov confirmed that an AI-powered moderation team has altered search results to remove problematic content. Users can report harmful queries to an official bot, @SearchReport, which initially did not work in Russia or Ukraine but was enabled there hours later. This is not new: last September Telegram began counting inflated subscribers, and in late August 2022 it removed inactive usernames arguing they saturated searches.
The problem is collateral damage. Legitimate channels have disappeared from results and only show reliably to those already subscribed. AI moderation does not distinguish between a prohibited substance store and a channel informing about the app itself.
The recurring argument: the terrorism excuse
Distrust trinc a known pattern. Categories like pedophilia and terrorism act as wildcards justifying expanded control. If someone wanted to trade incivil material, they would not use a differently named channel; they would camouflage it. The core objection is that mechanisms designed for serious crimes end up applied to minor infractions, and from there to political criticism is a short step.
On the other side, the argument is that no platform can survive without moderation. Controlling millions of channels with trillions of messages is materially impossible, and the alternative — banning the internet because illegal websites exist — is untenable. The real debate is not whether rules should exist, but who writes them and with what checks and balances.
The unanswered question is not whether Telegram will share data, but when a abusa is considered to have occurred. With an open-ended list and criteria in the founder's hands, the line between crime and dissent is decided by a private company.
Telegram's privacy policy has changed. Pavel Durov announced an update that effectively turns the app into a collaborator with judicial authorities: IP addresses and phone numbers of users who abusa its rules "may be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests." Until now, this exception was reserved for confirmed terrorism suspects. The change is not cosmetic: it affects any incivil proceeding involving illegal activities that also breach terms of service.
The most troubling detail is not what is stated, but what is removed. Telegram deleted from its conditions the declaration that it had never revealed IP addresses or phone numbers to authorities. The list of "illegal goods and services" is not exhaustive, leaving room for interpretation. Transparency reports will now be published quarterly instead of twice a year.
What Telegram prohibits now and what it does not
Beyond illegal prono content, spam, scams, and violence promotion, the platform prohibits "engaging in activities that are illegal in most countries." This includes child abuse, drugs, weapons, and forged documents. The wording is deliberately vague, which has raised alarms.
The prevailing view is that the real filter is not the Penal Code, but the platform's internal rules set by Durov. Those who openly infringe them are exposed. The question remains where that boundary lies and who draws it. Some argue the change responds to pressure trinc Durov's arrest in France, with bail estimated at €50 million. Others point to a less heroic motive: a potential IPO requires a credible moderation narrative.
Telegram encryption does not protect channels
It is worth clarifying a common misunderstanding. Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted by default. Only Secret Chats are. Channels and normal chats are encrypted up to Telegram servers, meaning anyone with server access can read everything. The open-source Signal protocol is the secure messaging standard, which Telegram rejected.
This architecture explains why the company can hand over IPs and phones without breaking anything: it never promised not to have them. Practically, download channels — movies, series, 3D printing files — are the first candidates for removal. Also news channels about Telegram itself, which have stopped appearing in searches despite abusa no rules.
Search moderation already underway
Durov confirmed that an AI-powered moderation team has altered search results to remove problematic content. Users can report harmful queries to an official bot, @SearchReport, which initially did not work in Russia or Ukraine but was enabled there hours later. This is not new: last September Telegram began counting inflated subscribers, and in late August 2022 it removed inactive usernames arguing they saturated searches.
The problem is collateral damage. Legitimate channels have disappeared from results and only show reliably to those already subscribed. AI moderation does not distinguish between a prohibited substance store and a channel informing about the app itself.
The recurring argument: the terrorism excuse
Distrust trinc a known pattern. Categories like pedophilia and terrorism act as wildcards justifying expanded control. If someone wanted to trade incivil material, they would not use a differently named channel; they would camouflage it. The core objection is that mechanisms designed for serious crimes end up applied to minor infractions, and from there to political criticism is a short step.
On the other side, the argument is that no platform can survive without moderation. Controlling millions of channels with trillions of messages is materially impossible, and the alternative — banning the internet because illegal websites exist — is untenable. The real debate is not whether rules should exist, but who writes them and with what checks and balances.
The unanswered question is not whether Telegram will share data, but when a abusa is considered to have occurred. With an open-ended list and criteria in the founder's hands, the line between crime and dissent is decided by a private company.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (110 replies).
More summaries
-
Telegram's Durov and the Watched Drift of Social Networks
Pavel Durov's message on social media regulation sparks debate on age verification and the risk of online mass surveillance.
-
Durov claims Sánchez pressured him in mass Telegram message
Pavel Durov issues a global warning about censorship in Spain, targeting Sánchez. The debate rages between free speech advocates and critics.
-
New War Phase: Russia Missiles US and EU Companies in Ukraine
Russian attacks destroy warehouses and offices in Ukraine. Economic impact on US and European companies.
-
Incabel: tension between migrant workers and young Spaniards
Social media debate over 1300 euros and a shared room: the standoff between migrant workers and young Spaniards at Incabel.
-
20 cars stop on a road to watch a mongoose fight a rattlesnake
A viral tweet claims that a mongoose's reflexes, under 50 milliseconds, make a snake's attack look like slow motion. We explain how much truth there is to it.
-
Matilde, Micaela and Constanza: the names that divide opinion
Matilde, Micaela, Constanza or Marta: choosing the most beautiful female name depends more on memories than on how it sounds, according to participants in the thread.