'Thousands" of Telegram Channels Sell Stolen Identities, Reports WSJ (msn.com) 91
The Wall Street Journal writes that Telegram "has become the premier internet platform to buy everything from hacked data and weapons to illicit drugs and child sexual abuse material, according to current and former law-enforcement officials and cybercrime researchers..."
And it's also being used by identity thieves: There are thousands of channels and groups on Telegram that offer stolen identities that can be used to open bank and investment accounts. Some claim to offer already created bank accounts created with stolen details. A channel called Bank Store Online listed accounts at over 60 banks and cryptocurrency exchanges for sale, ranging from $80 for a personal account to $1,800 for a business one. Payments were charged in crypto... There are thousands of channels and groups on Telegram that offer stolen identities that can be used to open bank and investment accounts. Some claim to offer already created bank accounts created with stolen details. A channel called Bank Store Online listed accounts at over 60 banks and cryptocurrency exchanges for sale, ranging from $80 for a personal account to $1,800 for a business one. Payments were charged in crypto.
In Russia, where Durov launched Telegram in 2013, it is also the go-to platform where middlemen arrange deals that get around U.S. sanctions, such as smuggling in weapons parts, the Journal previously reported. Several groups advertise the sale of drones and Starlinks — small antennas to access the satellite internet network run by Elon Musk's SpaceX — to Russian combat units in Ukraine. In February, Musk tweeted that no Starlinks had been directly or indirectly sold to Russia, to the best of the company's knowledge. "It's ground zero for every illicit activity you can think of," said Evan Kohlmann, founder of Cloudburst Technologies, which monitors cybercrime on Telegram and elsewhere, and a frequent adviser to U.S. agencies.
And it's also being used by identity thieves: There are thousands of channels and groups on Telegram that offer stolen identities that can be used to open bank and investment accounts. Some claim to offer already created bank accounts created with stolen details. A channel called Bank Store Online listed accounts at over 60 banks and cryptocurrency exchanges for sale, ranging from $80 for a personal account to $1,800 for a business one. Payments were charged in crypto... There are thousands of channels and groups on Telegram that offer stolen identities that can be used to open bank and investment accounts. Some claim to offer already created bank accounts created with stolen details. A channel called Bank Store Online listed accounts at over 60 banks and cryptocurrency exchanges for sale, ranging from $80 for a personal account to $1,800 for a business one. Payments were charged in crypto.
In Russia, where Durov launched Telegram in 2013, it is also the go-to platform where middlemen arrange deals that get around U.S. sanctions, such as smuggling in weapons parts, the Journal previously reported. Several groups advertise the sale of drones and Starlinks — small antennas to access the satellite internet network run by Elon Musk's SpaceX — to Russian combat units in Ukraine. In February, Musk tweeted that no Starlinks had been directly or indirectly sold to Russia, to the best of the company's knowledge. "It's ground zero for every illicit activity you can think of," said Evan Kohlmann, founder of Cloudburst Technologies, which monitors cybercrime on Telegram and elsewhere, and a frequent adviser to U.S. agencies.
Re: Why only Telegram? (Score:4, Informative)
They're not wrong. Killing a grandmother and grandson who were fleeing while holding a white flag [cnn.com]. Israeli soldiers deliberately destroying food stocks [cnn.com]. Deliberately attacking civilians in their homes [marketwatch.com]. Deliberately killing journalists [imgur.com] so the truth can't get out. Deliberately destroying Palestinian homes [cnn.com]. Deliberately attacking [cnn.com] schools [cnn.com] where civilians [cnn.com] were sheltering [cnn.com]. And allow Jewish terrorists [cnn.com] to roam free.
Before anyone says anything, I don't see Ukraine deliberately attacking any Russian civilian or deliberately destroying any Russian property considering what Russia is doing to them. At this point, Israel is no different than Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
What Israel has done to Gaza is incomparable to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in every way. It's both funny and sad that in a different story you were railing against Telegram as a source of Russian disinformation when it has some of the best news channels for covering Israel's actions. This wave of negative storires on Telegram only arrived after some sensitive documents were leaked on Telegram in late August.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel... [haaretz.com]
"Before anyone says anything, I don't see Ukraine deliberately att
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
NPCs. They just got the Telegram Bad DLC
Re: (Score:3)
Who does the WSJ belong to?
A search engine query confirmed my belief that the buck stops with Rupert Murdoch [investopedia.com], the man also in charge of that Democrat-loving institution Fox News. I must admit that when I saw everyone piling onto Telegram my initial thought was that the US gummint was not totally uninvolved, but a Murdoch publication would be an unusual channel for them to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Who does the WSJ belong to?
A search engine query confirmed my belief that the buck stops with Rupert Murdoch [investopedia.com], the man also in charge of that Democrat-loving institution Fox News.
"...that Democrat-loving institution Fox News."?
Signal (Score:5, Funny)
The guy who runs Telegram is under arrest. Telegram is full of criminals. The guy who runs Telegram donates sperm. Don't use Telegram.
Signal is awesome. Signal is against surveilance capitalism. Signal is your fiend. Use signal.
Thanks news!
Re: (Score:1)
sarcasm isn't as effective when it's actually true ya silly goose
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "Telegram is bad because it doesn't encrypt your data, making it easy to steal. Also Telegram is in trouble because it encrypts your data so well, that government has problems getting to it".
That was the part I found most hilarious, as second followed the first with about a day worth of pause in between.
Re:Signal (Score:5, Informative)
Telegram's encryption of data does not really make it hard to get to. The only manner in which Telegram's encryption of data makes it hard for the government to get to is that they have a practice of putting servers with disk level encryption keys in one country, and the servers with disk storage for chats in another. This makes it so, if say the key server is in the UK, and the disk server is in Brazil, law enforcement from both sides would have to coordinate raids in both countries to occur simultaneously to seize the servers, and then cooperate on decryption.
Telegram's entire strategy of being hard to get to has been to just ignore lawful requests from law enforcement, even though for 99.9999%+ of chats, they have the keys to decrypt them as a company and can freely decrypt them if the company (or a key person, say its CEO, or an admin) were compromised by a nation state (either negative pressure like we'll bust your kneecaps or positive pressure like here's a stack of money)*.
Durov already started making changes to appease the French government after being arrested for not complying with french law and then entering France with an active arrest warrant. Finding people nearby is disabled now, and Telegram removed their text on their FAQ that private chats (ones that don't have open handles and can't be openly joined by any user, but are invite only either by a group owner or an invite link [the latter of which can be very openly spread online on non-Telegram platforms) don't get moderation, instead that reports in those chats will be acted upon to.
(*For all of Telegram's bluster about encryption, transport level and disk level encryption are bog standard in online server environments these days, and Telegram as a company has an ability to decrypt these messages. If we do assume that the few messages that are end-to-end encrypted are not backdoored in the E2EE approach [MTProto 2.0 is a very weird, very unproven crypto approach, but no backdoor has been conclusively proven so for the sake of discussion we give Telegram the benefit of the doubt], any chat with 3 or more people on it within Telegram cannot be an E2EE chat, and if you want to do it in a 1-on-1 chat, it must be manually turned on every time you want to use it.)
Re: (Score:1)
This long post can be summarized into:
>For all of Telegram's bluster about encryption
As compared to reality, where Telegram openly tells you the opposite (unlike for example Whatsapp that literally starts every chat with with bluster about its encryption). It's the governments that are complaining about Telegram's encryption. While being "mysteriously" quiet about Whatsapp.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree on this one. Telegram claims to be an "encrypted messaging app", aping the claims of apps like Signal and WhatsApp that employ E2EE by default. To the average non-technical user who doesn't then specifically read an FAQ page, it sounds like Telegram employs E2EE by default. Only when one reads help documentation does it disclaim that most chats aren't protected by E2EE.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really care about NSA honeypot that is Signal. There's a reason why every criminal and terrorist organisation on the planet tells their people not to use it. "But muh subpoenas" do make for a good fig leaf that works on low level of understanding people. Meanwhile we have no idea who is connected to the key exchange servers. Almost certainly, they have their own "NSA rack", as everyone else in the West does.
How do we know? The are allowed to exist in the West, and they aren't getting Durov'd/Assang'
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, there it is. The unproven conspiracy that Signal is an NSA honeypot because it's US based on the grounds of "how else has the government not cracked down on it?"
Source? Or are you a criminal? The largest problem many have with Signal is that it requires a phone number as the handle, which is generally undesirable among criminals when many
Re: (Score:1)
>The unproven conspiracy
Current lifetime of "unproven conspiracies" related to these issues being proven as fact is between 6 months and 2 years. Thank you for confirming that we're well on the timeline.
>Source?
Every organization that follows IT crime and translates/republishes citations of their recommendations. A good example is Islamic State which published recommendations on what its cells abroad should use to communicate and what they should not back at its peak in early 2010s.
You'd know this if
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care about NSA honeypot that is Signal.
Telegram is only "secure" in specific circumstances and retains access to the messages.
Telegram has repeatedly handed said "encrypted" data over to authorities *despite* claiming otherwise.
Signal has none of this.
But do conintue to toe the BS line on Signal. You are clearly in possession of super-secret evidence backing up this unfounded, unproven claim made by that paragon of sanity, Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:1)
Your derangement is so great, that not only did you miss the point of the post being that Signal existing in the West and handling its key exchange the way it does effectively ensures that it has NSA racks that have full backdoor access into the system.
But you even confused that with Musk, who has zero dogs in this fight. The man responsible for Telegram who got grabbed by the French is Durov, not Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, for a refreshing change of pace, try ducating yourself on the topic before making false statements about it. Just an idea. Use it. Don't use it.
Your ignorance on this topic is ... depressingly common.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps take your meds before posting. Or get some meds, because you're in desperate need of a psychiatric intervention if that is your genuine take and you're not just trolling.
Because you literally can't differentiate between two completely different people above, and you're doubling down on it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you literally can't differentiate between two completely different people above, and you're doubling down on it anyway.
Your reading comprehension, as heroic as you imagine it to be, is crippling you.
or that Musk was arrested because I'm not an ignorant buffon spouting unfounded garbage.
Musk, however, was the primary origin of the BS claim that Signal was compromised. He has never provided any evidence to support this claim other than his own deranged rantings. If you don't know this, or of the relationship between Musk and Durov then - and this is getting to sound repetitive - you are once again cementing the fact that you
Re: (Score:1)
And now you're confusing Snowden and Musk.
Musk derangement syndrome?
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing it's just ignorance [businessinsider.in] all the way down with you....
Kudos. There are very few who've made it to my blithering idiot list but welcome. Please report to the local burn unit for your care package and welcome mug.
Re: (Score:1)
When you are so deranged, you think "popular person rehashed old criticism" is the same as "primary origin".
Notably this is normal view for far left western nutjobs, who genuinely believe that real world doesn't exist, only perception of it. Therefore these claims weren't real as long as they didn't penetrate your social bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Both have been tapped by governments long ago, usually at telco level. POTS isn't a thing any more. All modern telephony on landlines is IP based.
"NSA room" at major telcos is a thing for a reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Four legs good, two legs baaaad (Score:2, Funny)
Dogpile time! (Score:3)
Kind of interesting the sudden news reports that bad things happen on the internet, but only of course on the platform that isn't toeing the line. Unfortunately I can't tell whether it's because people have a sudden interest in the platform, or whether someone wants to adjust people's opinion.
Re:Dogpile time! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah it's almost like if you're gonna look the other way on criminal activity there are better ways to do that than a very public and liable corporate entity.
IMO Telegram got greedy, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Be the total free speech site but at the same time operate as a for profity entity with mass appeal.
Much like any other organized crime (not that this is organized crime persay) there's what the law enforcement people know and what they can prove. If the criminals slip up suddenly the flood gates open. More people need to watch The Wire as it does good job on how cops have to construct a case when they absolutely know that criminal activity is happening. No prosecutor want's to indict based on just reasonable suspcision, you want to get to probable cause.
Durov either slipped up or the more speculative option is he went to France knowing the risk of arrest because he pissed Putin off somehow. I think we hardly have all the details so far on what's happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
"More people need to watch The Wire as it does good job on how cops have to construct a case when they absolutely know that criminal activity is happening."
You are credulously accepting the story's premise against telegram, and then telling other people to watch more TV to understand crime. That's pretty priceless. I haven't seen it but clearly The Wire didn't teach you about parallel construction, or encourage any critical thought about media framing of stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't know how many people you know but most I know would be more apt to watch an entertaining TV show that was behind the scenes written by ex-law enforcement and created by a guy who was a homicide beat writer for like a decade to teach people things rather than say, reading SC cases or law school textbooks.
You are the one who is "credulously accepting the story's premise against telegram", i made no such direct comparison just that it does in fact touch on things like what is needed for prosecutoi
Re: (Score:2)
"i made no such direct comparison"
You accepted the premise with your first sentence, otherwise how do you "look the other way" from something that isn't there?
"Yeah it's almost like if you're gonna look the other way on criminal activity there are better ways to do that than a very public and liable corporate entity."
Re: (Score:2)
I mean the CEO of the company is under arrest on charges pertaining to that very thing. Sure, he could be decalred not-guilty in trial but it's not unreasonable to suspect the things a company has pending charges about might actually be true?
Don't think I haven't noticed you haven't actually said anything is wrong, you just don't like my comparisons. Do you think the charges and this story are incredulous? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Except this article has nothing to do with the French charges against him, which are listed by the article as "complicity in distributing child pornography, illegal drugs and hacking software". *I* am incredulous about the targeting of Telegram at a time of massive censorship (right on the heels of Tiktok as the last satan), arrest of journalists for their work (esp. in the UK), and also at a time when two of the west's major war projects (Israel and Ukraine) are massively failing, and countries involved in
Re: (Score:2)
two of the west's major war projects (Israel and Ukraine)
lol, We are done here. Keep parroting those talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the charges and this story are incredulous? Why?
dude, it's the wall street fucking journal.
also,
incredulous:
(of a person or their manner) unwilling or unable to believe something.
also,
there's indeed crime going on telegram. just as on about any other platform except, indeed, law enforcement might have more difficult access to telegram. but for the same reason telegram has also many enemies. as it is assumed to be a safe harbor for free expression, basically anywhere in the world there will be someone who doesn't want certain information to spread. so it
Re: (Score:2)
as it is assumed to be a safe harbor for free expression
That's a pretty big assumption made by all it's users when it is in fact not true. Telegram has access to almost all the information sent over it's app but for the people cognizant enough to use the E2EE messenger.
The issue here is not whether criminal activity is taking place on a platform, we all know that can happen anywhere, it's Telegrams failure to do anything when notified about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> IMO Telegram got greedy, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Be the total free speech site but at the same time operate as a for profity entity with mass appeal.
You only think that Telegram got greedy, because you got so used to acquiescing your natural born rights to free speech, to governments and corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am a human being who can understand the idea that there are no such things as "natural born rights" because a right written on a piece of paper without enforcement and protection is worth as much as that piece of paper.
Do not lecture me about "acquiescing" anything when you clearly do not understand where rights come from in the first place.
Re:Dogpile time! (Score:4, Insightful)
What is interesting to me is that it is happening now. Most of the "challenges" with Telegram have been well known almost since its inception. Why all the stories piling on now... besides the arrest which I assume is a symptom rather than cause.
Re: Dogpile time! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is interesting to me is that it is happening now. Most of the "challenges" with Telegram have been well known almost since its inception. Why all the stories piling on now... besides the arrest which I assume is a symptom rather than cause.
It's simple, because people want to read it.
A month ago if the reporter approached the editor with that story the answer would probably be "Our readers don't use Telegram, why would they care about a story on it?" And so the reporter went off and did a story about something else.
Then the CEO/Founder got arrested and everybody started talking about it. Now editors are asking their reporters for ideas on Telegram stories and we're getting stuff like this.
And honestly, that's kinda the system working as it sho
The problem with telegram isn't towing the line (Score:1)
This is about foreign policy nothing more nothing less. Russia makes heavy use of telegram in its military structure and this is the west disrupting that.
Re: (Score:1)
He had to flee Russia because he wouldn't cooperate with the Russian government either. WTF is wrong with you?
Re:The problem with telegram isn't towing the line (Score:4, Interesting)
Some take issue with the news source being Ukranian. For the part of Durov's lawyer, they do not deny the validity of the above reporting [reuters.com]:
Before Durov was arrested, he tried to meet with Putin in Azerbaijan, but Putin refused [turan.az]. After which point, Durov flew straight from Azerbaijan to France, where he was aware he was a wanted man: [cbsnews.com]
For all the talk of "the arrest warrant was issued in the air", he was already on wanted lists, which is why authorities issued the arrest warrant when they saw him on a passenger manifest for a flight heading to France:
All of this is to say, by all appearances, Durov was much closer to Russia then he left on, had a backup plan of extraordinary French citizenship that France gave in 2021, he didn't enter Russia after 2022 (when he had entered more than 60 times 2014-2021, before the Ukranian war), he tries to meet with Putin in neutral territory in 2024, and when Putin refuses, he flies straight to a European country that he's a citizen of that refuses to extradite their own citizens to be arrested knowing he's a wanted man.
Sounds to me like somebody was on Putin's good side, at least until the war in Ukraine started, and then he hedged his bets.
Re: (Score:1)
I see NPC got his new firmware update.
In real world on the other hand, defense of Kiyv was also arranged on Telegram. And Durov had to flee Russia.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think exiles are always life long or something? Even Greek ostracism only lasted a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, man. Know your audience.
'Defenestrate' means to re-partition your drive via a GNU/Linux installer off a USB stick.
Re: (Score:1)
'Defenestrate' means to re-partition your drive via a GNU/Linux installer off a USB stick.
I thought it was something they do to external genitalia.
Re: (Score:3)
An ultra-rich went was taken into police HQ and questioned, probably probably going to be into trialled sometime later, risks jail. It is a very uncommon event. It justifies that news outlet like WSJ and WSJ reports what it is all about. Granny does not understand why everybody is talking again about the Western Union Telegram service.
Regarding someone wanting to adjust opinions, I can only see 1) French President Macron, but it does not make sense for him to target American media, or 2) A competitor. Signa
censorship brigade is on the march! (Score:1)
We're still in preseason. The others (signal, etc.) will be attacked soon
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actual secure and private communication is needed for society to be free. A nice benchmark is whether it can be abused. If not, it is not secure or private.
The fix here is not to bring in surveillance fascism, but to _finally_ start real work on making identity theft harder. Obviously, a lot of the political spectrum will demand that the freedom to communicate privately be removed, because they are not actually interested in a solution and people that can communicate outside of their control and censorship scare them.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is though is that to have a an actual solution to identity theft is probably going to require some degree of state intervention and centralization. It's either that or some sort of corporate control over it. We've been hearing proposals for a Universal-Single-Sign-On since the 90's and it hasn't happened precisely because the internet has remained so de-centralized as people have demanded.
Most American's probably would balk at the idea of getting an "official" online identity that is verified in-per
Re: (Score:2)
The solution on the privacy side is simple:
1. Only use the identity when somebody knows anyways (bank, vendor, etc.) and
2. Do not require any central instance that sees all uses of that identity and outlaw any data collection (except when needed for a business transaction).
My take is we do not have secure online identities because the usual surveillance fascists could not accept the second item.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean sure, in a perfect world but even right now the only "real" identity you have is via the government. Either your state ID, birth certificate, SSID or passport. Everything online is trying to hack around not requiring the divultion of such ID's or requires them (your bank, etc)
I don't see a reasonable way for real meat-sack people to be able to actually verify who they are online without some degree of involvement from the state.
Of course that alone hinges on the state itself being trustworthy and ha
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a reasonable way for real meat-sack people to be able to actually verify who they are online without some degree of involvement from the state.
For a second there, smart card slots were becoming more common on PCs, I had them on several laptops. In theory anyone could issue you a card which you could slot into your computer and use it for both authentication of identity (you are the same person they handed the card to) and also as an encryption key. Then you'd supply a PIN to unlock the key. I also have a USB card reader around here someplace that was issued by some bank which I got with a mess of cables at a yard sale.
This requires only as much go
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I do think about smart cards and how handy that would be if that did become a commonplace thing. I suppose phones with 2FA could still work that way, if you had a certain auth key that was only available from in person ID, or am I off base on that?
Re: (Score:2)
This whole thing is risk management. For things where your identity being stillen matters little or not at all, obviously a secure identity is not needed. For, say, bank transfers and online shopping, that is different. And there you do not have anonymity already.
Remember we are talking identity theft here. Identity theft only really matters if the thieves can monetise that theft.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say in the age of social media identity can matter more than just money and just general. I would say over half of what people interact online would benefit from a "real" identity verification system. Social media, shopping, gaming, utilities and banking. That's a big chunk of stuff.
Money aside reputational damage can be an issue with hacking and impersonation and most any site on the internet with user interaction would probably enjoy a better way to filter out bots and have a better means of mod
Re: (Score:2)
Telegram was never designed to be secure in that sense.
Telegram is more like a social network. You join channels that interest you, like following someone on Twitter. The channel is their feed of posts. They are not like group chats, that's not what they are designed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual secure and private communication is needed for society to be free. A nice benchmark is whether it can be abused. If not, it is not secure or private.
The fix here is not to bring in surveillance fascism, but to _finally_ start real work on making identity theft harder. Obviously, a lot of the political spectrum will demand that the freedom to communicate privately be removed, because they are not actually interested in a solution and people that can communicate outside of their control and censorship scare them.
Phones and mail were fairly easily tapped and we were free. Why is unbreakable encryption between any number of parties anywhere on the planet suddenly a requirement for freedom?
Now, maybe the trade-offs for making it possible for governments to subpoena those communications are too great. But I don't see grounds for this absolutist position that lawless Telegram-like forums are a necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones and mail were fairly easily tapped and we were free. Why is unbreakable encryption between any number of parties anywhere on the planet suddenly a requirement for freedom?
Because at the time you are talking about, tapping phones and opening mail was high-effort and could only be done small-scale. As to encryption, you should by now know that insecure encryption is insecure against more attackers than the intended ones and will eventually get broken by criminals as well. Also insecure encryption allows for cheap and low-effort mass surveillance. If you really do not know that then you have been living under a rock because this has been discussed time and again, also here.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones and mail were fairly easily tapped and we were free. Why is unbreakable encryption between any number of parties anywhere on the planet suddenly a requirement for freedom?
Because at the time you are talking about, tapping phones and opening mail was high-effort and could only be done small-scale. As to encryption, you should by now know that insecure encryption is insecure against more attackers than the intended ones and will eventually get broken by criminals as well. Also insecure encryption allows for cheap and low-effort mass surveillance. If you really do not know that then you have been living under a rock because this has been discussed time and again, also here.
So the problem isn't the lack of secure and private communication, it's cheap and low-effort mass surveillance. So perhaps there's some ways to find a bit of a compromise.
For instance, in this case it seems like the governments in question are find with having encrypted channels and communications. But what they had a problem with is terrorist groups and criminal marketplaces operating in the open and the service refusing to shut down the channels.
I'm not sure why the governments position is unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
So the problem isn't the lack of secure and private communication, it's cheap and low-effort mass surveillance. So perhaps there's some ways to find a bit of a compromise.
Nope, there is not. This has been discussed for about 3 decades in the crypto research community and the universal consent is that there is no such way.
The Russian and Chinese agents are out in force he (Score:2)
I'm no fan of telegram, but... (Score:2)
Methinks that the investigative journalists lump together the real criminals selling stolen identities with the dudes selling weed
They are not the same
Obviously, (Score:2)
So we will ban Telegram from our devices, for fear of being associated with the wrong people. Then what? Do these morons who believe that propaganda think that all that illegal activity will cease? Shooting the messager has never worked.
No, the real reason is that Telegram cannot be bribed to let Western three-letter-agencie
A lot of criminals use cars (Score:1)
This just does not make any sense. Plain stupidity.
the propaganda machine in full swing (Score:1)
Wow, this went from telegram to zionism fast (Score:1)
Just piling on to get Telegram (Score:1)
WhatsApp (Score:2)
What about all the CSAM and crime rings on WhatsApp?
No one cares I guess, because Zuck owns it?
Must be an election year /s (Score:2)