“We can confirm that our moderators took down several channels sharing personal data. However, we can also confirm that no private user data was requested from Telegram and that none has been shared,” the company told the publication in a statement.
That statement is in contradiction to Iraq statement.
The ministry said it lifted the ban because of the “response of the company that owns the application to the requirements of the security authorities,” which required Telegram to reveal sources leaking data of officials and citizens, according to a translated statement.
And Telegram is known to share the data when required while keeping their transparency channel empty.
Yes, it definitely is - but, from a recent controversy originated from a Delhi court ruling that Telegram must hand them the identity of some users administrating some piracy channels, we learned that “private user data” doesn’t include the phone number linked to your account and the IP addresses of your active sessions - which is probably the data Iraq received from them. Citing a telegram’s spokesperson response to a Tech Crunch’s question on whether they shared private data:
“Telegram stores very limited or no data on its users. In most cases, we can’t even access any user data without specific entry points, and we believe this was the case here. Consequently, we can’t confirm that any private data has been shared in this instance,” Telegram spokesperson Remi Vaughn told TechCrunch. [link]
8.3. Law Enforcement Authorities
If Telegram receives a court order that confirms you’re a terror suspect, we may disclose your IP address and phone number to the relevant authorities. So far, this has never happened. When it does, we will include it in a semiannual transparency report published at: https://t.me/transparency.
…which seems to be a lie considering how much evidence is piling up without being firmly dismissed by Telegram
That’s what I wanted to read
That statement is in contradiction to Iraq statement.
And Telegram is known to share the data when required while keeping their transparency channel empty.
Yes, it definitely is - but, from a recent controversy originated from a Delhi court ruling that Telegram must hand them the identity of some users administrating some piracy channels, we learned that “private user data” doesn’t include the phone number linked to your account and the IP addresses of your active sessions - which is probably the data Iraq received from them. Citing a telegram’s spokesperson response to a Tech Crunch’s question on whether they shared private data:
Their privacy policy still mentions this, btw:
…which seems to be a lie considering how much evidence is piling up without being firmly dismissed by Telegram