International
Telegram founder tells Tucker Carlson that US intel agents tried to spy on user messages
Telegram’s Pavel Duroc
From LifeSiteNews
By Matt Lamb
Federal law enforcement tried to convince a Telegram engineer to change the software so law enforcement could read the messages of its users, Pavel Durov told Tucker Carlson during a recent interview.
Federal law enforcement tried to convince a Telegram engineer to change the software so law enforcement could read the messages of its users, the company’s founder told Tucker Carlson during a recent interview.
But he also warned the bigger threat to free expression comes from Google and Apple, which effectively control the use of apps on smartphones.
Telegram is a messaging app that founder Pavel Durov created with his brother after experiencing harassment by Russian officials. Durov remains the “sole owner” of the company. Users can set up “channels” to send mass messages. This function has been useful for political movements, including democracy activists in Hong Kong.
It now has 900 million monthly users worldwide. It uses encrypted messaging which protects users’ privacy.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1984, the entrepreneur had created another social media company; it predated Facebook but was similar in its networking functions. Russian officials demanded Durov hand over private data from groups on the platform, called VK, that were organizing against Vladimir Putin and the country’s leadership.
But in some ways, he faced similar problems from American officials when he was working in San Francisco.
“We get too much attention from the FBI, the security agencies, wherever we came to the US,” Durov said. “So, to give you an example, last time I was in the US, I brought an engineer [who] is working for Telegram, and there was an attempt to secretly hire my engineer behind my back by cyber security officers or agents, whatever they are called.”
Durov said the officials “were curious to learn which open-source library site integrated through Telegram’s app,” he said.
Intel agencies tried to create a backdoor into Telegram, founder tells Tucker Carlson. pic.twitter.com/i4HDykvG6I
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) April 18, 2024
But furthermore, “they were trying to persuade him to use certain open-source tools that he would then integrate into the Telegram code that, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors.”
“Would that allow the US government to spy on people who use Telegram?” Carlson asked.
“The US government, or maybe any other government, because a backdoor is a backdoor regardless of who is using it. That’s right,” Durov said.
“You’re confident that happened,” Carlson asked, about the recruitment efforts.
Durov said yes, because the engineer wouldn’t have a reason to make up the story and Durov shared that he himself has been targeted by the intelligence agencies for recruitment.
He told Carlson:
There is no reason for my engineer to make up the stories. Also, because I personally experienced similar pressure in the U.S whenever I would go to the US, I would have, two FBI agents greeting me at the airport, asking questions. One time I was having my breakfast at 9 a.m. and the FBI showed up at my house that I was renting. And, that was quite surprising. And I thought, you know, we’re getting too much attention here. It’s probably not the best environment to run…
… They were interested to learn more about Telegram. They knew I left Russia. They knew what we were doing, but they wanted details. And my understanding is that they wanted to establish a relationship, to, in a way control Telegram better… I understand they were doing their job. It’s just that for us, running a privacy focused social media platform, that probably wasn’t the best environment to be in. We want to be focused on what we do, not on the government relations of that sort.
“Government relations,” Carlson said, laughing.
The company has now operated out of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates for seven years.
Durov said the company has had better experiences in the UAE. In addition to low taxes and few regulations, the “best part” is that country has not pressured the company to work with it to spy on users.
Carlson asked:
So, in the time that you’ve been here, there have been a number of wars and threats of war. Precursors to war. Have you had any pressure from the government here [in UAE)? Honestly, any pressure from the government here, to reveal a back door into Telegram or to ban anyone or to make any changes to your business?
“That’s the best part. For all the seven years we’ve been here, there’s been zero pressure coming from the UAE towards Telegram,” he said. “They’ve been very supportive, very helpful, and it’s a big contrast [to] whatever we’ve experienced before.”
He said the company has been “receiving a lot of requests” to work with governments. When there is clearly something like “terrorist activity,” the company does assist. In other cases where it was legitimate free speech, Telegram ignores them.
Asked to give an example of “censorship” and privacy violations, Durov related how his company received conflicting letters from American congressional leaders related to the investigation into the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Democrats in Congress,”requested that we would share all the data we had in relation to what they called this uprising. And we checked it with our lawyers, and they said, you better ignore it,” Durov recalled. “But the letter seemed very serious. And, the letter said, ‘if you fail to comply with this request, you will be in violation [of], you know, the US Constitution or something.”
He said two weeks later Republican leaders sent the company a letter telling the company that complying with the request for data would also violate the US Constitution.
Telegram ignored Jan 6. massive data request from Democrats. pic.twitter.com/OxdHubojbx
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) April 18, 2024
“So, we got two letters that said, whatever we do, we’d be violating the US Constitution,” he said.
Biggest censorship threat is from Google, Apple
Even after going through numerous requests to hand over data or install spying software on Telegram, Durov said the biggest threat to free speech is not even from governments, but from Big Tech platforms Google and Apple.
“I would say the largest pressure [on] Telegram is not coming from governments. It’s coming from Apple and Google,” Durov said. “So, when it comes to freedom of speech, those two platforms, they could basically censor whatever is you can access on your smartphone.”
The companies can remove Telegram from the app stores, which would hurt the company.
“Obviously a big chunk of the world’s population would lose access to a valuable tool,” he said.
The biggest threat to free speech is Google and Apple, Telegram founder tells Tucker Carlson. pic.twitter.com/6yDtrbWIDg
— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) April 18, 2024
The “application of the rules” seems political at times, Durov said. The “rules themselves” are “pretty general,” such as no “violence” or “publicly available child abuse materials,” he said. “It’s hard to disagree with that.”
But Telegram and the Big Tech platforms clash over the “interpretation” of the rules.
“And sometimes they do agree, to their credit,” he said.
However, Durov said he is “hopeful” that past censorship of political movements is truly in the past, saying he does not ” necessarily believe that things are going to get worse.”
He contrasted the platform’s neutral position when it comes to the politics of its users with companies such as Facebook.
“I think Facebook in particular has a lot of reasons apart from being based in the US for doing what they’re doing. I think every app and platform plays its own role,” he said. “You know, we believe that humanity does need a neutral platform like Telegram that will be respectful to people’s privacy and freedoms.”
Durov affirmed he does not want to get involved in any specific political side, when Carlson asked if he wanted to be a “player in world politics.”
He still avoids the United States due to his past experiences with law enforcement.
Company would not take down content skeptical of COVID restrictions
While other platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, would remove or throttle content critical of COVID measures (such as forced masking and COVID jabs), Durov said Telegram did not.
He told Carlson:
We’re a neutral platform. We were helping governments to spread their message about the lockdowns and masks and vaccines. We got dozens of governments who we really [helped with], you know, some of their information, but we also didn’t want to restrict the voices that were critical of all those measures. We thought it made sense for…opposing views to collide and hopefully, you know, see some truth come out of those debates. And of course, we got criticized for that. But, looking back, I think it was the right strategy.
“During the pandemic, we I think were one of the few or maybe the only major social media platform that didn’t, take down accounts or that were skeptical, in relation to some of these measures,” he said.
Durov also said he thinks Elon Musk is doing a good job running X (formerly known as Twitter).
“What X is trying to do is in line [with] what we are building: innovation, trying different things, trying to give power to the creators, trying to get the ecosystem economy going,” he said.
“Those are all exciting things. And I think we need more companies like that,” he said.
“I don’t know if it’s good for humanity that Elon is spending so much time on Twitter making it better, but it’s definitely good for the social media industry.”
Carlson ended by telling Durov he is “rooting” for the company. Carlson’s show has since opened its own Telegram channel.
Business
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
From LifeSiteNews
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions from 61-66% over the next decade, even though President Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
Outgoing President Joe Biden announced December 19 a new climate target of reducing American carbon emissions of more than 60% over the next decade, even though returning President Donald Trump would be able to undo it as soon as next month.
“Today, as the United States continues to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, President Biden is announcing a new climate target for the United States: a 61-66 percent reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas emissions,” the White House announced, the Washington Free Beacon reports. The new target will be formally submitted to the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
“President Biden’s new 2035 climate goal is both a reflection of what we’ve already accomplished,” Biden climate adviser John Podesta added, “and what we believe the United States can and should achieve in the future.”
The announcement may be little more than a symbolic gesture in the end, however, as Trump is widely expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement upon resuming office in January, in the process voiding related climate obligations.
Trump formally pulled out of the Paris accords in August 2017, the first year of his first term, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stating that the administration would be “open to re-engaging in the Paris Agreement if the United States can identify terms that are more favorable to it, its business, its workers, its people, and its taxpayers.”
Such terms were never reached, however, leaving America out until Biden re-committed the nation to the Paris Agreement on the first day of his presidency, obligating U.S. policy to new economic regulations to cut carbon emissions.
In June, the Trump campaign confirmed Trump’s intentions to withdraw from Paris again. At the time, Trump’s team was reportedly mulling a number of non-finalized drafts of executive orders to do so.
Left-wing consternation on the matter is based on certitude in “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) or “climate change,” the thesis that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate and that such trends pose a danger to the planet in the form of rising sea levels and weather instability.
Activists have long claimed there is a “97 percent scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number comes from a distortion of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals, 66.4 percent of which expressed no opinion on the question; in fact, many of the authors identified with the AGW “consensus” later spoke out to say their positions had been misrepresented.
AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings in order to make the so-called “settled science” say what climate activists wanted it to.
armed forces
Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Morgan Murphy
With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.
It is a start.
But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.
Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.
The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.
In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.
Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.
What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics
The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.
Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”
Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.
How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”
Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.
Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Federal taxes increasing for Albertans in 2025: Report
-
Business2 days ago
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
-
COVID-191 day ago
Children who got COVID shots more likely to catch the virus than those who didn’t, study finds
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
World’s largest AI chip builder Taiwan wants Canadian LNG
-
Energy2 days ago
Guilbeault’s Emissions Obsession: Ten Reasons to Call Time Out on Canada’s CO2 Crusade
-
Alberta2 days ago
Fraser Institute: Time to fix health care in Alberta
-
Business1 day ago
The gun ban and buyback still isn’t worth it for taxpayers
-
National1 day ago
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches