Telegram Will Now Share Users’ IP Addresses and Phone Numbers With Governments in Response to Legal Requests

News release from Reclaim The Net

Telegram, the messaging app that once positioned itself as the rebel’s answer to Big Tech surveillance, has made a sharp U-turn on the “we protect your data at all costs” highway. On Monday, the company quietly updated its privacy policy to allow for the disclosure of user information—like those precious IP addresses and phone numbers—to law enforcement, but only, of course, if they present a valid legal request.

As we all know, no one has ever stretched the definition of “valid” to fit their agenda, right?

This revelation comes hot on the heels of a little incident back in August, when Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov found himself in handcuffs, detained by French authorities. What was the crime? Well, it appears Telegram was accused of playing hardball with French law enforcement, refusing to hand over data, leading to Durov’s arrest. It seems law enforcement didn’t take kindly to that level of noncompliance, especially after making 2,460 unanswered requests for information.

The Policy Flip-Flop

The new policy revision is a complete about-face from the one Telegram’s loyal fans were sold on. The old rules were crystal clear. Telegram might give up your details—your IP address and phone number—but only if you were a suspect in a terror case. The policy even reassured everyone that this kind of handover had never happened.

Not anymore.

Now, Telegram has widened the net. According to the newly revised policy, if you violate Telegram’s Terms of Service—you know, the thing no one ever reads—they may hand over your info if they get a “valid” order. The language is dripping with corporate hedging: “If Telegram receives a valid order from the relevant judicial authorities that confirms you’re a suspect in a case involving criminal activities that violate the Telegram Terms of Service, we will perform a legal analysis of the request and may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities.”

Of course, Telegram is still committed to transparency—at least on paper. The company promises to disclose all such incidents in its quarterly transparency reports, which, conveniently, can be accessed via a dedicated bot.

Durov’s Declaration: Aimed at Who, Exactly?

Durov took to Telegram to tell users, “We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, ensuring they are consistent across the world.”

He continued, “We’ve made it clear that the IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate our rules can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.”Durov further added, “These measures should discourage criminals. Telegram Search is meant for finding friends and discovering news, not for promoting illegal goods. We won’t let bad actors jeopardize the integrity of our platform for almost a billion users.”

The French Connection

But what really forced Telegram’s hand? Let’s rewind to Durov’s August airport arrest, where things started to get clearer.

After allegedly over 2,400 ignored requests for data, French authorities had had enough. They brought in the National Gendarmerie to get to the bottom of Telegram’s refusal to cooperate.

Apparently, turning over data wasn’t an option until they started detaining CEOs.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going.

Thank you.

Make a one-time donation

Related Topics:#BigTechSurveillance #ReclaimTheNet #Telegram ChristinaMaas PavelDurov

Up Next

New Democrat MP introduces bill that would criminalize ‘denial’ of unproven residential school narrative

Don't Miss

“Government Heroin” documentary exposes rampant safer supply fraud

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Is There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

International / 4 hours ago

Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organization

Business

Trump signs executive order banning government censorship

Published on January 20, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Dan McCaleb

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order banning the federal government from taking any action to restrict Americans free speech rights.

The order ensures “that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

It also ensures “that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen” and “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

Meta earlier this month ended its practice of censoring posts on Facebook, Instagram and Threads after CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden administration pressured the company to remove posts related to COVID-19, the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections – including suppressing the New York Post’s explosive story on Hunter Biden’s laptop – and other matters.

“We started building social media to give people a voice,” Zuckerberg said in announcing the decision. “What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.”

Twitter, now X, also removed posts under pressure from the Biden administration before Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk bought the social media platform in 2022.

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Attorney General to investigate past cases of government censorship.

“The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report,” the order states.

Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Dan McCaleb

Executive Editor

Business

UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms

Published on January 20, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Didi Rankovic

Labour MP Lola McEvoy defended the Online Safety Act’s censorious measures, including bans and fines for social media platforms which ‘don’t comply’ with the strict age verification law.

Politicians from the U.K.’s ruling Labour party are starting to openly “out” the country’s Online Safety Act for the sweeping censorship law that its opponents have all along been warning it is.

The extreme case of using the law to completely ban social media platforms in the U.K. is now being promoted as a possibility by Labour MP Lola McEvoy.

“If these big platforms that have huge users don’t comply with the Online Safety Act, then they have no right to be accessed in this country,” the MP said while appearing on a podcast, adding, “So I think that’s what the law’s about.”

The masks are coming off, prompted by the latest clash between the government and Prime Minister Keir Starmer in particular and X owner Elon Musk – who criticized their role in a historical child sex exploitation scandal in the U.K.

In addition to saying that failure to comply with the law could result in the platforms getting banned, McEvoy suggested that “unelected citizens from other countries” should not be allowed to criticize U.K.’s government – she justified this by saying the criticism of Minister for Safeguarding Jess Phillips created “a very dangerous situation,” equating it to “bullying and harassment.”

McEvoy even made a point of public figures needing to be even more aggressively protected through censorship – effectively from whatever the government backing those figures decides to pack into the vague categories such as “bullying” and “harassment,” and in that way deal with critical, including legitimate, speech.

And where would any controversial call to step up online censorship be without getting served to the public as a way to above all – protect children?

McEvoy spoke about regulator Ofcom’s powers, which she described as “really significant” in enforcing the fines under the law that is being gradually implemented.

And as that is happening, this MP wants the Online Safety Act to be “strengthened” where it concerns the focus on things it treats as harmful to children, such as access to illegal content or pornography.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.