The German government demanded that Telegram appoint
Posted: Sun May 18, 2025 10:55 am
A legal representative within the country and comply with the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). While Telegram has removed some public channels at Germany’s request, it continues to resist pressure to moderate private conversations or disclose user identities. Telegram and Law Enforcement Agencies Telegram’s relationship with law enforcement agencies globally is generally characterized by resistance, caution, and strict boundaries. It does not offer a "backdoor" for governments, unlike some platforms that have been accused of secretly cooperating with intelligence agencies. Telegram does not participate in real-time surveillance programs and does not respond to informal law enforcement requests without a court order. Telegram’s legal team evaluates each request against its privacy policy and applicable international laws.
In most cases, law enforcement requests for user data are denied, especially if they originate from authoritarian regimes or lack transparency. Comparisons with Other Platforms Compared to other mexico telegram data major platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or Signal, Telegram occupies a unique position. WhatsApp offers end-to-end encryption for all chats but is owned by Meta, a company known for data mining and controversial cooperation with authorities in various countries. Facebook Messenger does not offer default end-to-end encryption and collects extensive metadata. Signal offers best-in-class encryption and collects minimal metadata, but its server infrastructure is more centralized, and it is based in the U.S., subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Telegram sits somewhere in the middle—offering a blend of cloud functionality and privacy, while aggressively defending against government overreach.
Its transparency report shows a better track record than most mainstream platforms in terms of data disclosure to authorities. Limitations and Criticism Despite its strong privacy stance, Telegram is not without criticism. Security experts often criticize Telegram for not using standard open-source end-to-end encryption protocols (like Signal Protocol) in cloud chats. There are also concerns about metadata retention, especially IP logs, which Telegram stores for up to 12 months. Moreover, Telegram has faced accusations of being too slow in removing extremist content and misinformation. This has led to criticism from governments and civil society groups that demand more accountability, especially for public channels and groups. Another gray area is the platform’s moderation policy, which remains largely opaque.
In most cases, law enforcement requests for user data are denied, especially if they originate from authoritarian regimes or lack transparency. Comparisons with Other Platforms Compared to other mexico telegram data major platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, or Signal, Telegram occupies a unique position. WhatsApp offers end-to-end encryption for all chats but is owned by Meta, a company known for data mining and controversial cooperation with authorities in various countries. Facebook Messenger does not offer default end-to-end encryption and collects extensive metadata. Signal offers best-in-class encryption and collects minimal metadata, but its server infrastructure is more centralized, and it is based in the U.S., subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Telegram sits somewhere in the middle—offering a blend of cloud functionality and privacy, while aggressively defending against government overreach.
Its transparency report shows a better track record than most mainstream platforms in terms of data disclosure to authorities. Limitations and Criticism Despite its strong privacy stance, Telegram is not without criticism. Security experts often criticize Telegram for not using standard open-source end-to-end encryption protocols (like Signal Protocol) in cloud chats. There are also concerns about metadata retention, especially IP logs, which Telegram stores for up to 12 months. Moreover, Telegram has faced accusations of being too slow in removing extremist content and misinformation. This has led to criticism from governments and civil society groups that demand more accountability, especially for public channels and groups. Another gray area is the platform’s moderation policy, which remains largely opaque.