I think the lesson of Telegram is that if you’re going to operate a global business under multiple jurisdictions, you better have a team large enough to handle requests to comply with local laws. Simply pretending they don’t exist won’t cut it.
Discussion
Well, it could if they were running it like the sketchy system it actually is...
We have no idea what they share and not share with some or more governments...
Also, have a solid paper trail of everything.
Binan has over 100 team of regulations and cz is still
I’m not familiar with particulars of binance
Binance
So the lesson you learned is that we need to comply better?
Looks like telegram didn’t have default on encryption and failed to monitor the unencrypted content for illegal materials.
Lesson is don’t be a dumbass and encrypt by default or be prepared to comply …
Law means very little anymore anywhere other than as a mechanism to accelerate the powerful getting what they want while the majority of primates gaze mindlessly elsewhere between sips of Kool-aid.
If the state wants you, they will get you, the particulars don't really matter.
Sure. But it’s not clear if they just wanted him, or if he was truly ignorant and reckless as claimed. My guess is the latter is more likely.
What if I am running extremely tiny business that just happens to serve a very distributed client base? Are those businesses just unfeasible legally anymore?
Of course not, people will keep doing that, but because they are small they are not a target.
I hate this whole thing it is depressing.
Sure an argument can be made here, but it’s not like telegram didn’t have the revenue to run larger teams (I think)
nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac and that means you can't allow free speech if you offer anything in the EUSSR.
You can if you can’t possibly know what’s being said …
or don't travel to said countries i guess.
The lesson seems to be more like the state will throw any bullshit around to persecute people building technologies they don't like, meaning systems that use these technologies should be built to be resilient to single points of failure while giving companies plausible deniability that they tried but couldn't enforce restrictions. Compliant noncompliance is the way.