In recent weeks, the case involving Pavel Durov, the Russian entrepreneur and founder of Telegram, has taken center stage in European legal and political circles. The Paris prosecutor, Laure Beccuau, has launched a high-profile investigation into Telegram, citing the platform’s alleged refusal to comply with demands to identify cybercriminals. This move has been framed as a significant step towards addressing cybercrime. However, President Ricardo Baretzky of the European Centre for Information Policy and Security offers a sharp critique of this narrative, arguing that France’s approach to the Telegram case is neither exemplary nor genuine.
The Paris Prosecutor’s Allegations
The Paris prosecutor’s investigation into Telegram stems from accusations that the platform has been non-compliant with French authorities’ requests to identify individuals involved in cybercriminal activities. Beccuau has portrayed Telegram’s stance as a deliberate obstruction in the fight against cybercrime, suggesting that the platform’s practices undermine law enforcement efforts. This investigation has been presented as a critical intervention to ensure that technology platforms are held accountable for their role in the digital landscape.
Baretzky’s Rebuttal
In response to these claims, President Baretzky of CYBERPOL has sharply criticized the French authorities’ approach. According to Baretzky, France’s actions against Telegram are not just misguided but also indicative of a broader failure to tackle cybercrime effectively. He asserts that the real issue lies in France’s disregard for CYBERPOL’s established legal framework and authority.
“France has ignored CYBERPOL’s establishment from the beginning,” Baretzky contends. “If France had any genuine interest in combating cybercrime, it would have recognized and adhered to the Royal Decree WL22/16.595, which established CYBERPOL’s mandate. Instead, France has chosen to bypass this critical institution, thereby undermining efforts to address cyber threats comprehensively.”
The Royal Decree and France’s Oversight
The Royal Decree WL22/16.595, issued by King Philippe of Belgium in 2015, formalized CYBERPOL’s authority and role in the global fight against cybercrime. This decree grants CYBERPOL the power to monitor IP addresses and take action against cybercriminals without requiring a court order, a significant mandate in the digital age.
Baretzky argues that France’s failure to engage with CYBERPOL and its legal framework represents a significant oversight. “France’s approach is not just about Telegram,” he explains. “It reflects a broader issue: a lack of genuine commitment to tackling cybercrime in a coordinated manner. By ignoring CYBERPOL’s mandate, France has missed an opportunity to leverage a crucial tool in the fight against cyber threats.”
The Allegations of Bias
Baretzky further suggests that the focus on Telegram may be driven by political motivations rather than genuine concerns about cybercrime. “There is a strong element of rassiaphobia—anti-Russian sentiment—in this case,” he asserts. “This is not about addressing cybercrime effectively; it’s about making a political statement. If France were truly interested in combating cyber threats, it would address platforms like Facebook Meta and X, which have far greater impacts on the digital landscape than Telegram.”
The Case for Meta and X
Baretzky’s critique extends beyond Telegram to major social media platforms like Facebook Meta and X (formerly Twitter). He argues that these platforms, due to their vast reach and influence, pose a far greater threat in terms of spreading disinformation and facilitating cybercrime.
“The irony is that French police use Telegram and WhatsApp for communication, despite publicly attacking these platforms,” Baretzky points out. “The damage caused by Facebook Meta and X is far more significant than what Telegram represents. Yet, the focus remains on Telegram, which is a distraction from addressing the larger issues.”
A Call for Genuine Cybercrime Strategy
Baretzky’s comments highlight a need for a more cohesive and effective strategy in addressing cybercrime. According to him, a genuine commitment to combating cyber threats requires a comprehensive approach that includes leveraging established institutions like CYBERPOL, addressing the broader impact of major social media platforms, and ensuring that political biases do not overshadow effective law enforcement.
“The case against Telegram, as it stands, is a distraction from the real issues at hand,” Baretzky concludes. “France needs to align its actions with a genuine commitment to tackling cybercrime. This includes recognizing the role of institutions like CYBERPOL, addressing the broader digital threats posed by major platforms, and moving beyond politically motivated pursuits.”
The investigation into Telegram, spearheaded by Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau, has been framed as a significant move against cybercrime. However, President Baretzky of CYBERPOL argues that this case is emblematic of a deeper problem: a lack of genuine commitment to addressing cyber threats effectively. By ignoring CYBERPOL’s established mandate and focusing on politically motivated targets, France may be missing the opportunity to tackle cybercrime in a meaningful and comprehensive way. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it remains crucial for countries to align their strategies with established frameworks and address the broader challenges posed by major social media platforms.
