this post was submitted on 13 May 2024

100 points (97.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54669 readers

512 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

100

Telegram Reportedly "Ready to Fight Piracy" According to Govt. Official * TorrentFreak (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Glass0448@lemmy.today to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 66 points 6 months ago (42 children)

Too bad Telegram isn't as ready to fight Nazi propaganda on their service, but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.

[–] AbackDeckWARLORD@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 months ago

but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.

Can you provide a link for this? Interested in reading about it

load more comments (41 replies)

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 months ago

These fucks just can't stop spoiling everything for people

[–] ahriboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 6 months ago

RIP OnlyFans leaks on telegram

[–] Andy@programming.dev 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So far, this isn't much of anything.

Telegram already closes public channels reported for copyright violations.

Some excerpts from this post:

Compared to other platforms, we do not see the seriousness of Telegram to cooperate.

. . .

In May 2023, progress appeared to be going in the wrong direction. Telegram was reportedly refusing to cooperate with the Ministry of Communications and Digital on the basis it did not wish to participate in any form of politically-related censorship.

. . .

With no obviously public comment from Telegram on the matter, it’s hard to say how the social platform views its end of what appears to be an informal agreement.

Telegram will be acutely aware, however, that whatever it gives, others will demand too. That may ultimately limit Telegram’s response, whatever it may be, whenever it arrives – if it even arrives at all.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

How much responsibility would a service like Signal have, if they were to inadvertently host a private group for pirated content? I believe signal groups can have up to 1000 members, and these members can be pretty anonymous given the need to only share an ephemeral username which can not be linked to a phone number or any other identity? Can they claim plausible deniability and not do anything?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

IANAL and all the other anals, but my understanding is Signal wouldn't be liable and wouldn't have to do anything. They designed their service so they can't know the content of the messages, so if a third party Maloyse (see what I'm doing there?) is reporting a message between Alice and Bob that Maloyse thinks to be illegal, Signal would be within legal grounds to bring into question how did M got that message, and it can't be used as proof against Signal because there is no legal mechanism by which Signal could have acquired that message and act upon it - in fact, Signal has grounds to suspect Maloyse is crafting those messages, since neither Alice nor Bob have reported such message.

This post is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Feel free to contact me to negotiate for an alternative license.

[–] Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 6 months ago

This is the correct answer. Both Alice and Bob approve.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In a group chat, M wouldn't be a 3rd party.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Maloyse absolutely can:

eavesdrop above Alice's shoulder
be an evil, militarily dressed maid on ~~Bob~~ Alice's home
have remote administrative permissions on Bob's phone
("accidentally") get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie's desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but we're discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it's harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can't. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.

Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and "upgrade" their lawyer plan to "content vetter", but as far as I know that hasn't happened yet.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't get what you're trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.

Yes, they're a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don't take action. Whether or not that's fair is a pretty large topic, though I'm inclined to think so myself.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action.

And the action Signal can take is pretty clear: "Okay thanks for reporting, feel free to file a lawsuit against Alice and or Bob instead, have a nice day." Remember: even if Signal had Charlie's credentials to view the chat, unless Charlie is an admin of the chat Signal can't do anything other than log Charlie off the group. Plus each participant still has their own message store. So by this point Signal has complied with the law. It's literally Section 230.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Not sure why you're citing US law when we're discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.

[–] azalty@jlai.lu 2 points 6 months ago

What if that happens on Session? Can the nodes operators be sued even though they have no access to the content?

load more comments