Tucker Carlson and Pavel Durov: The FBI WANTED Spying Powers Over Telegram

Summary

In a recent interview, Tucker Carlson sat down with Telegram founder Pavel Durov to discuss free speech, government pressure, and social media censorship. Durov shared how both the Russian and U.S. governments have sought access to Telegram, with the FBI allegedly trying to infiltrate the company to gain a backdoor for surveillance. The conversation compared Durov’s commitment to privacy to that of other tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. It also touched on the broader trend of social media platforms grappling with censorship and free speech issues in different political contexts.

Takeaways

• 📱 Telegram founder Pavel Durov refused to censor political opponents at the request of the Russian government and chose to leave the country instead, emphasizing his commitment to free speech.
• 👁️ The U.S. government, according to Durov, tried to secretly hire a Telegram engineer to create a backdoor for spying on Telegram users, which Durov resisted.
• 🔒 Telegram is fully encrypted, and neither the government nor the company can track the origins of its messages, which raises concerns for governments looking to monitor communications for security reasons.
• 📈 Telegram now has over 900 million active users worldwide, positioning it as a major platform in the social media landscape.
• 🚫 Durov contrasts his stance on censorship with the actions of other tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Parag Agrawal, who have collaborated with governments in censorship efforts.
• 🤔 Social media companies, including Facebook and Snapchat, are increasingly moving toward end-to-end encryption to protect user privacy and avoid conflicts with law enforcement.
• 🎤 Durov welcomed Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, viewing it as a positive move toward less censorship, though he questioned some of Musk’s actions and policies.
• 🌍 The discussion raised concerns about censorship in different countries, such as Elon Musk’s compliance with censorship demands in India, possibly due to Tesla’s business interests there.
• ⚖️ The interview highlighted the tension between free speech and government intervention, especially as governments push for greater access to encrypted platforms like Telegram for national security purposes.
• 📝 The interview concluded with debates about Musk’s inconsistency in applying free speech principles, suggesting that while Musk has taken steps toward transparency, his decisions are still influenced by business interests.

Q & A

Who is Pavel Durov, and why did he leave Russia?

Pavel Durov is the founder of Telegram. He left Russia after refusing a request from the Russian government to use Telegram to censor political opponents, demonstrating his commitment to free speech.

What did the U.S. government allegedly attempt regarding Telegram?

Pavel Durov claims that U.S. government agents attempted to hire a Telegram engineer to integrate open-source tools that could serve as a backdoor, potentially allowing the government to spy on Telegram users.

What are the implications of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps like Telegram?

End-to-end encryption ensures that neither the government nor the platform itself can read users' messages. This raises privacy concerns for governments but is seen as a way to protect users from surveillance.

How does Telegram's approach to free speech differ from other social media platforms?

Telegram has a strong commitment to free speech, refusing to cooperate with government censorship, unlike other platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which have been criticized for collaborating with governments on censorship issues.

What comparison is made between Pavel Durov and other tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Parag Agrawal?

The script compares Pavel Durov's refusal to cooperate with government censorship to Mark Zuckerberg and Parag Agrawal, who have reportedly collaborated with governments, making Durov's stance more aligned with free speech.

What is the controversy around Elon Musk's stance on censorship?

Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter (now X) was praised for supporting free speech, but his actions, such as complying with censorship demands from India and Israel, have raised questions about whether his commitment to free speech is consistent or driven by business interests.

How has Telegram been used by various groups, and why is this significant?

Telegram has been used by a wide range of groups, including criminals and terrorists, due to its strong encryption and lack of oversight, which is significant because it highlights the platform's challenges in balancing free speech and public safety.

What was Tucker Carlson’s argument about free speech in the interview?

Tucker Carlson argued that there are few tech companies truly committed to free speech, and he praised Pavel Durov as one of the rare figures who stood firm in his principles, in contrast to other tech leaders.

Why does the interview suggest that end-to-end encryption could become more prevalent in the future?

End-to-end encryption is becoming more prevalent as users and platforms seek to protect privacy from government surveillance, especially as platforms like Facebook are moving towards implementing similar encryption measures for services like Messenger.

What concerns were raised about Elon Musk's inconsistent policies regarding censorship?

The script raises concerns about Elon Musk's inconsistency, pointing out that while he promotes free speech on X in some cases, he has also conceded to government pressures in other countries, suggesting his decisions may be influenced by business interests.

Outlines

00:00

🎤 Tucker Carlson Interviews Telegram Founder on Free Speech

In a recent interview, Tucker Carlson spoke with Telegram founder Pavel Durov about his refusal to comply with the Russian government's demands to censor political opponents, emphasizing his strong commitment to free speech. This contrasts with figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Parag Agrawal, who have collaborated with governments to censor users. Durov also revealed attempts by U.S. security agencies to hire one of his engineers to insert a backdoor into Telegram, raising concerns about privacy and government surveillance.

05:01

🔒 Privacy Concerns and the Push for Encryption

Durov discussed the FBI's attempts to access Telegram users’ data and the broader trend of social media platforms moving towards end-to-end encryption to protect user privacy. Companies like Facebook and Snapchat are adopting encryption, partly to avoid government intervention. However, the debate continues about whether governments will allow this or push back to maintain their ability to monitor messages under the guise of national security. The discussion highlights how companies are balancing user privacy with government pressure.

10:02

⚖️ The Complexities of Free Speech and Censorship

The conversation shifts to Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and his stance on free speech, with Durov welcoming the competition in the anti-censorship space. However, questions arise about whether Musk's actions are driven by genuine support for free speech or business interests, particularly in regions like India where he faces censorship demands. While Durov's commitment to free speech remains strong, the interview points out inconsistencies in Musk's approach, raising doubts about his credibility as a free speech advocate.

Keywords

💡Pavel Durov

Pavel Durov is the founder of Telegram, a messaging app known for its strong emphasis on privacy and encryption. In the video, Durov is discussed in the context of his refusal to cooperate with governments, such as when the Russian government pressured him to censor political opponents. His actions highlight his commitment to free speech, a key theme in the interview with Tucker Carlson.

💡Telegram

Telegram is an encrypted messaging app founded by Pavel Durov. It has gained popularity for its commitment to privacy, reaching over 900 million active users. The video discusses Telegram in the context of government attempts to create backdoors for spying, particularly by the FBI, which ties into the larger theme of free speech and censorship in the digital age.

💡Encryption

Encryption is the process of encoding information so that only authorized parties can access it. Telegram uses end-to-end encryption to ensure that no one, including the government or even Telegram itself, can read users' messages. This concept is central to the discussion of privacy in the video, where it is contrasted with other platforms that have cooperated with governments for surveillance.

💡Censorship

Censorship refers to the suppression of speech or information, often by governments. In the video, Durov's refusal to censor political opponents in Russia is highlighted, contrasting with other social media companies like Facebook and Twitter that have been accused of complying with government censorship requests. The video explores how censorship conflicts with free speech, a core theme.

💡Backdoor

A backdoor is a hidden method of bypassing normal authentication in a system, often used for surveillance. In the video, Durov claims that the U.S. government attempted to introduce a backdoor into Telegram, which would have allowed unauthorized access to users' private messages. This connects to the broader theme of government overreach and privacy concerns in digital communications.

💡Free Speech

Free speech is the right to express one's opinions without censorship or restraint. This concept is central to the video, as both Pavel Durov and Elon Musk are framed as defenders of free speech in the tech industry. Durov's resistance to government pressure is contrasted with other tech leaders who have been more willing to cooperate with censorship.

💡Elon Musk

Elon Musk is the owner of Twitter (now rebranded as X), who has also positioned himself as a defender of free speech. In the video, Musk's actions regarding censorship are compared to Durov’s, with some questioning the consistency of Musk’s commitment to free speech, particularly in cases involving government pressure from countries like India.

💡FBI

The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is the U.S. government's domestic intelligence and security service. In the video, Durov alleges that FBI agents attempted to secretly hire a Telegram engineer to create a backdoor into the platform, which aligns with the overarching concerns about government surveillance and the erosion of digital privacy.

💡End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption ensures that messages are encrypted on the sender's device and only decrypted on the recipient's device, preventing any intermediaries from accessing the data. This technology is a critical point in the video, where Durov's Telegram is praised for its strong encryption compared to other platforms that are more susceptible to government surveillance.

💡Surveillance

Surveillance refers to the monitoring of behavior, often by governments or law enforcement. In the video, Durov talks about how governments like the U.S. and Russia have pressured tech companies, including Telegram, to provide access to user data. The discussion highlights the conflict between privacy and security, especially in a post-9/11 world where government surveillance has increased.

Highlights

Telegram founder Pavel Durov refused the Russian government's request to use Telegram to censor political opponents, choosing to leave Russia instead.

Pavel Durov shared that the U.S. government attempted to secretly hire his engineer to potentially create a backdoor in Telegram.

Telegram has more than 900 million active users, highlighting its widespread use as an encrypted messaging app.

Durov described how U.S. agents wanted to persuade his engineer to integrate certain open-source tools that could serve as a backdoor for spying.

Durov emphasized Telegram's commitment to privacy and not allowing governments to use the platform for surveillance.

Comparison of Telegram's stance on privacy with Mark Zuckerberg and Parag Agrawal, who have collaborated with governments for censorship.

Social media companies like Facebook and Snapchat are increasingly moving towards end-to-end encryption to enhance user privacy.

End-to-end encryption in messaging apps could hinder government surveillance efforts, raising concerns among security agencies.

Pavel Durov is portrayed as a figure committed to free speech, contrasting with leaders of other social media companies.

Criticism of Elon Musk for compromising on censorship demands from the Indian government, allegedly due to business interests.

Discussion of censorship of pro-Palestinian voices on social media platforms, including Elon Musk's stance on content like 'From the river to the sea.'

Durov responded positively to Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, supporting more players in the anti-censorship space.

Telegram has faced backlash for being used by criminals and terrorists when other platforms implement stricter content moderation.

The discussion highlighted the inconsistency of Elon Musk's approach to free speech across different countries and political contexts.

Pavel Durov appears to be seen as a true free speech advocate, compared to Elon Musk who makes selective business-driven decisions.

Transcripts

[Music]

in his latest interview host Tucker

Carlson sat down with telegram founder

pav durov to discuss social media tech

companies and Elon Musk let's listen

when the Russian government asked pav

durov to use his social media company to

censor its political opponents he

refused he said he would rather resign

and leave the country where he was born

than participate in something like that

such was his commitment to free speech

now you got to compare that what he did

what pav dof did to what Mark Zuckerberg

did or prag agarwall the guy who ran

Twitter before Elon Musk bought it both

of them have collaborated with

governments to censor people and that's

shameful the encrypted messaging app

telegram has reached more than 900

million active users now paval durov

said in this interview with Tucker that

the United States government wanted a

so-called backdoor into telegram to

potentially spy on its us users let's

listen we got too much attention from

the the FBI the security agencies

wherever we came to the US so to give

you an example last time I was in in the

US I brought an engineer that is working

for telegram and there was an attempt to

secretly hire my engineer behind my back

by cyber security off officers or agents

whatever they are called the US

government should hire your engineer

that's my understanding that's what he

told me to write code for them or to

break into telegram they were curious to

learn which open- source libraries are

integrated to the telegram's app you

know on the client side and they were

trying to persuade him to use certain

open source tools that he would then

integrate into the telegram's code that

in my understanding would serve as back

door

would allow the US government to spy on

people so I thought this was a very

interesting interview and pav durov the

founder of telegram is uh interesting

person so he is someone who left Russia

because the Russian government put

pressure on him to um give information

about Ukrainian figures that kind of

thing and now he's warning that and it

was very preliminary conversations it

sounds like but that that FBI agents

here's what he's saying reached out to

people who work for him

and he thinks we're most curious about

potentially designing some kind of back

door into telegram telegram is end to

end encrypted when you send a message

over it it's it be there there's no way

to to for the the government or the

company frankly to track the origins of

that so I I think this is interesting

because social media companies are

moving in this direction they've heard

our as consumers our concerns about

privacy that they can they can snoop

they can read what we are saying that um

if there's some crime or national

security threat the government can

subpoena them to get that information

and the social media companies don't

like that so Facebook wants to move to

end to end encryption for Messenger um

Snapchat is ostensibly already end

to-end encrypted although i' me and

others have had some questions about how

endtoend encrypted it is um the question

is is the government going to Simply let

that happen or is it going to go away

wait a minute we want to still be able

to you know read these messages um if we

think it's National Security or

something like that

yeah I agree with all that except for

that I don't think it's a consumer

anguish that's driving these decisions I

think that these businesses are doing

what businesses do always which just

look out for their own interest it's and

their interest not to be embroiled in

these battles over whether or not they

should or should not have reported on

their users given that sometimes they're

being asked to report on their users who

have solicited uh abortion pills um and

in a state where conservatives have made

abortion legal right uh but in which

most of the country things shouldn't

have happened and would uh get backlash

on a company like Facebook so for

whatever the reason uh I think that

you're right that companies are moving

in this direction to protect themselves

frankly against um getting caught in

those kind of um values-based dramas

over whether they should help the cops

in one instance or another instance and

I think that's substantively a good

thing why do you think there was such a

positive reaction given that all of the

social media companies regardless of how

they're like coded liberal or

conservative um such a reaction a

positive reaction um to this interview

in particular well I think he's a very

interesting person very knowledgeable

and is not you know this is not a you

Tucker obviously does a lot of

interviews with very um right-wing uh

people this is a figure who I think has

credibility as some you know now that

the right is peren as is seen as being

uh and particularly the Tucker faction

of the right is seen as being kind of

like Pro Putin or Pro Russia this is

someone I I don't think you can credibly

make that accusation although on his

platform I'm sure there are pro-russian

people using it to to disc I mean

there's there's bad people obviously on

the platform that use it um I remember

telegram got a lot of push back from

like having like um like um terrorists

on the platform and then of course you

January 6 has been a big conversation

about um telegram well I remember

reading some report about how uh

criminals uh terrorists to the extent

when they get when the crackdowns are

worse on platforms like Facebook they're

actually more likely to go to to

telegram where to have their

conversation so it's like if you so the

just like I was saying the feds want all

of the conversations take it between

criminals taking place like in public on

Facebook where they can easily get that

information um so they have they don't

exactly have the same uh same

motivations but I think it'll be

interesting to see the extent to which

end to end decryption becomes the total

Norm

and whether the government is going to

do anything to try to like prevent that

because they have such an interest in

being allowed you know people the law

enforcement people the Senators you

remember that that ridiculous Tech

hearing from a couple weeks ago where

they just screamed at Mark Zuckerberg

and the twitch founder and others about

the abuse and manipulation of some

children on the platforms it's like well

the this is a handful of incidents the

platforms take steps do take steps to

prevent but there is going to be more

ability to get away with um malicious

behavior abusive behavior when it is

endtoend decrypted but it will also be

much more difficult and hopefully

impossible for the federal government to

do the kind of interventions that have

so irritated uh people on on many side

you know Common People on many sides of

the political Spectrum yeah it was

interesting at one point in the

interview um Tucker asked uh Pavel uh

about uh other apps that are good on

censorship and point it to Twitter as an

example saying Elon buying Twitter sort

of ends your Monopoly on anti-censorship

uh but do you still greet it cheerfully

are you in favor of it you know do you

feel competitive now that Elon Musk is

in the kind of anti-censorship game or

are you happy about it he responded that

he's happy about it that he loves that

Elon bought Twitter but it to me raised

some questions about what what are they

actually talking about um one of the

biggest um categories of censorship that

we're seeing right now is of course

against prop Palestinian voices Elon

Musk came back from a trip from Israel

obviously saying that if you use the

phrase from The River To The Sea

Palestine will be free that that

constitutes violence terrorism I forget

the exact uh verbiage and that could

warrant your censorship uh he uh has

gotten a lot of flak for uh acessing to

censorship demands in India from Modi

not just censoring political opponents

within India but around the globe there

have been arguments that the reason that

he's behaving so differently toward

India versus Brazil is because he is uh

manufacturing Teslas in India and has a

personal incentive to roll over on

censorship there to maintain a healthy

relationship for his business so is this

really about Free Speech or are these

individuals making kind of arguments

that are in their business interest the

same way that frankly into in encryption

as I argued before is in their business

interest yeah I mean telegram has a

commitment to free speech that goes well

beyond anything we're talking about on

the the mainstream social media sites

now it's that's it's a business part of

it it's for business reasons but that's

its business model is one that gives you

that kind of um um U atmosphere yeah I I

I mean you know we talk about this a lot

but I think elon's commitment to free

speech on X has been mixed at best I I

think the partial transparency he

brought to how the site was being

operated previously was certainly a good

thing and I I'm glad for it I think his

policies that he

has um put onto the platform are are

very Hit or Miss including the you know

the the should X should well should X

person be allowed back on to X let's run

a poll makes absolutely no sense to me

the you know the looking into it kind of

approach well you're the you're the CEO

you're the person in charge the owner

you can't be called upon to do that um I

some of the inconsistency as you pointed

out I agree our inconsistencies and he

you he should be allow that kind of

speech now he has faced I and he's face

pressure from um activist groups

including the Anti-Defamation League to

change some of those policies with

respect to Palestinian speech and

probably the Israeli government now we

we you and I just don't agree on the to

be clear the ADL is pushing him to do

exactly the kind of censorship that he

is doing right they threaten his yeah

they threaten his advertisers they told

his advertisers to stop working with the

comp

has an adversary relationship with him

but is also on the same side with him

when it comes to Ian fold he has folded

on several times now in terms of the

authoritarian or semi-authoritarian

governments putting pressure on him I

think you and I just disagree on that I

don't I don't think it's his fault if

India says do this or you can't operate

here or Brazil says it or turkey says it

or China says it that is a fault of the

government doing it I don't I don't how

the how the CEO responds in that and if

they say well in this case we're going

to do it but in this case we're going to

not it's a it is a business decision I

think that's a fair argument if you you

say I'm making business decisions here

but if you're saying I'm a free speech

icon and heralding your behavior in one

country as uh an Exemplar of your

character on this issue while asking us

not to pay attention to you completely

ruling over in a different country I

guess what I'm saying is that the

telegram CEO I think should not concede

so relative so readily to Tucker

Carlson's argument that there are two

free speech heroes in the game it think

from my perspective it seems like

there's still only the one and his name

is not Elon Musk all right that does it

for us today tomorrow on Rising we will

hand off the Baton to the Friday's team

ran and I will be back next week be sure

to like share and subscribe so you never

miss any content for those of you who

prefer to listen while you're on the go

we're now available anywhere you listen

to podcast bye-bye take care

[Music]