​For days after the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov by French authorities at Le Bourget Airport near Paris, the world civil liberties community held back.
 
The impulse to rush to the defense of a Russian dissident/entrepreneur was almost overwhelming. Durov had refined his skills with the creation of VK, a social media website that allowed dissidents, opposition politicians, and Ukrainian protesters to evade Vladimir Putin’s emerging surveillance state as late as 2014. After Durov fled Russia with his brother Nikolai, they created the encrypted messenger service Telegram, which allows users not only to communicate in secrecy, but to also set their messages to disappear.
 
Across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and our own country, Telegram enables dissidents, journalists, and people in fear of cartels or abusive spouses to communicate without making themselves vulnerable. So civil libertarians were naturally poised to rush to Durov’s defense. But they didn’t. There was the matter of the 12 charges approved by a French judge this week, including “complicity” in crimes such as aiding in the distribution of international narcotics and child sex abuse material.
 
The many devils in this case lurk in its many details, some of which are far from well understood. At this point, however, we can at least pose preliminary questions. Some answers must come from the French government. Some must come from every person who cares about privacy, including the almost 1 billion users of Telegram.

1. Telegram has a service that offers unencrypted, custom chat rooms and one-way broadcast channels that can accommodate up to 200,000 users. Was it in these semi-public channels that the French government alleges the criminal conduct took place?
   
   
2. Did Durov and his people monitor these large chat rooms and channels? If they did not, perhaps out of a matter of principle, does that exculpate them to any degree?  
   ​
   
3. The value of an encrypted messaging service is its security. The provision of a backdoor by Telegram to any government would necessarily result in the compromise of Telegram’s value to some of the most endangered and vulnerable people in the world. But the flip side of this is that with an encrypted service there may be no way for even Durov himself to know the content of the messages crossing his servers. Should such hands-off, deliberate ignorance absolve Durov & Co. from criminal liability?

 
We can already highlight at least one aspect of this case that should concern civil libertarians and free speech advocates around the world. Thanks to an insightful analysis by Kevin Collier and Rob Wile in Slate, we know that two of the 12 charges involve a purported obligation of providers of cryptological services to require their users to register with their real identities. Another count declares it a crime to import such an encrypted service “without prior declaration.”
 
Collier and Wile write that this latter provision, which at first sounds like a matter of bureaucratic form-filling, actually implies that “France sees the use of internationally based, unregulated ‘encryption’ service as a crime all its own.” If so, will France get away with criminalizing private encryption services? And if that happens, might this become EU policy?
 
We are already seeing Europe employ illiberal interpretations of the recently enacted Digital Services Act. The EU’s top digital regulator, Thierry Breton, threatened X with legal action if it ran Elon Musk’s full interview with Donald Trump. While Breton’s threat was later disowned by his boss, EU President Ursula von der Leyen, it was still breathtaking to see in Europe today that a powerful regulator believes the European public would be well served by censoring the words of a major party nominee to lead the United States. It is not a stretch to imagine such people also wanting to stamp out private communications. Is France now using possibly legitimate charges about Telegram’s operation to undermine the very idea of encryption?
 
Everyone who cares about privacy should watch how this case unfolds. After all, thanks to Telegram, we know that there are at least one billion of us.

​A report by The New York Time’s Vivian Wang in Beijing and one by Tech Policy’s Marwa Sayed in New York describes the twin strategies for surveilling a nation’s population, in the United States as well as in China.
 
Wang chronicles the move by China’s dictator, Xi Jinping, to round out the pervasive social media and facial recognition surveillance capability of the state by bringing back Mao-era human snitching. Wang writes that Xi wants local surveillance that is “more visible, more invasive, always on the lookout for real or perceived threats. Officers patrol apartment buildings listening for feuding neighbors. Officials recruit retirees playing chess outdoors as extra eyes and ears. In the workplace, employers are required to appoint ‘safety consultants’ who report regularly to the police.”
 
Xi, Wang reports, explicitly links this new emphasis on human domestic surveillance to the era when “the party encouraged residents to ‘re-educate’ purported political enemies, through so-called struggle sessions where people were publicly insulted and humiliated …” Creating a society of snitches supports the vast network of social media surveillance, in which every “improper” message or text can be reviewed and flagged by AI. Chinese citizens are already followed everywhere by location beacons and a national network of surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology.
 
Marwa Sayed writes about the strategy of technology surveillance contained in several bills in New York State. One bill in the state legislature would force the owners of driver-for-hire vehicles to install rear-facing cameras in their cars, presumably capturing private conversations by passengers. Another state bill would mandate surveillance cameras at racetracks to monitor human and equine traffic, watching over people in their leisure time. “Legislators seem to have decided that the cure to what ails us is a veritable panopticon of cameras that spares no one and reaches further and further into our private lives,” Sayed writes.
 
She notes another measure before the New York City Council that would require the Department of Sanitation to install surveillance cameras to counter the insidious threat of people putting household trash into public litter baskets. Sayed writes:
 
“As the ubiquity of cameras grows, so do the harms. Research shows that surveillance and the feeling it creates of constantly being watched leads to anxiety and paranoia. People may start to feel there is no point to personal privacy because you’ll be watched wherever you go. It makes us wary about taking risks and dampens our ability to interact with one another as social creatures.”
 
Without quite meaning to, federal, state, and local authorities are merging the elements of a national surveillance system. This system draws on agencies’ purchases of our sensitive, personal information from data brokers, as well as increasingly integrated camera, facial recognition, and other surveillance networks.
 
And don’t think that organized human snitching can’t come to these shores either.
 
During World War One, the federal government authorized approved citizens to join neighborhood watch groups with badges inscribed with the words, “American Protection League – Secret Service.” At a time when Americans were sent to prison for opposing the war, the American Protection League kept tabs on neighbors, always on the watch out for anyone who seemed insufficiently enthusiastic about the war. Americans could be reported to the Department of Justice for listening to Beethoven on their phonographs or checking out books about German culture from the library. 
 
Today, large numbers of FBI and other government employees secretly “suggest” that social media companies remove posts that contain “disinformation.” They monitor social media to track posts of people, whether targeted by the FBI as traditional Catholics or observant Muslims, for signs of extremism. As world tension grows between the United States and China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, something like the American Protection League might be resurrected soon in response to a foreign policy crisis. Its digital ghost is already watching us.

​Amnesty International released a report based on interviews with 32 Chinese students, including 12 from Hong Kong, studying in universities in eight countries – from the United States to Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
 
Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s China Director, said that even when Chinese students study thousands of miles from home, many live in fear. “The Chinese authorities’ assault on human rights activism is playing out in the corridors and classrooms of the many universities that host Chinese and Hong Kong students,” she said.
 
A typical story was told by a student who attended a commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. She was careful not to share her real name with anyone involved in the protest or to post anything online. Yet, a few hours later she heard from her father in China, who had been grilled by security officials. 
 
Such surveillance could possibly be performed by a quick study of online images. About one-half of Amnesty’s interviewees said they had been photographed or recorded at events by someone present at the protest. The only conclusion to draw from this is that China has enough spies in the United States and Western countries to show up and shadow protest events. Many students said they censor themselves online – even in the classroom – due to the perceived risk their comments and opinions will be reported. One-third of students said they changed the focus of their studies or dropped out of planned academic careers because of this pressure.
 
“Threats made to family members in mainland China included to revoke their passports, get them fired from their jobs, prevent them from receiving promotions and retirement benefits, or even limiting their physical freedom,” Amnesty reports. In some instances, families have been pressured to cut off financial support for their children.
 
More than one-half of the students interviewed said they suffered mental health issues linked to their fears, ranging from stress and trauma to paranoia and depression. One case led to hospitalization.
 
Western universities have been slow to recognize and counter these threats to students. Some academics have even sided with China against dissident students. Amnesty reports that a student was dropped by a Western university researcher on a project after learning that she had participated in a protest critical of China.
 
“The impact of China’s transnational repression poses a serious threat to the free exchange of ideas that is at the heart of academic freedom, and governments and universities must do more to counter it,” Brooks said.
 
Universities need to be fully aware of the threat of surveillance and retaliation against their students from China. The U.S. government must also take countermeasures to stop Chinese surveillance of students in the United States, even if this means expelling diplomats or tracking others who surveil and harass students exercising their right to free speech. We must also be aware of the dangers of purchased or posted data and videos that expose Chinese students to harm.
 
Amnesty’s report is a reminder that that in the United States, it is not just the U.S. federal government that surveils Americans and visitors to our shores.

​Ken Blackwell, former ambassador and mayor of Cincinnati, has a conservative resume second to none. He is now a senior fellow of the Family Research Council and chairman of the Conservative Action Project, which organizes elected conservative leaders to act in unison on common goals. So when Blackwell writes an open letter in Breitbart to Speaker Mike Johnson warning him not to try to reauthorize FISA Section 702 in a spending bill – which would terminate all debate about reforms to this surveillance authority – you can be sure that Blackwell was heard.
 
“The number of FISA searches has skyrocketed with literally hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches per year – many of which involve Americans,” Blackwell wrote. “Even one abuse of a citizen’s constitutional rights must not be tolerated. When that number climbs into the thousands, Congress must step in.”
 
What makes Blackwell’s appeal to Speaker Johnson unique is he went beyond including the reform efforts from conservative stalwarts such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Andy Biggs of the Freedom Caucus. Blackwell also cited the support from the committee’s Ranking Member, Rep. Jerry Nadler, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who heads the House Progressive Caucus. Blackwell wrote:
 
“Liberal groups like the ACLU support reforming FISA, joining forces with conservatives civil rights groups. This reflects a consensus almost unseen on so many other important issues of our day. Speaker Johnson needs to take note of that as he faces pressure from some in the intelligence community and their overseers in Congress, who are calling for reauthorizing this controversial law without major reforms and putting that reauthorization in one of the spending bills that will work its way through Congress this month.”
 
That is sound advice for all Congressional leaders on Section 702, whichever side of the aisle they are on. In December, members of this left-right coalition joined together to pass reform measures out of the House Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming margin of 35 to 2. This reform coalition is wide-ranging, its commitment is deep, and it is not going to allow a legislative maneuver to deny Members their right to a debate.

The Biden Administration has placed the people, the industry, and the national security of the United States on the edge of a cyber cliff and is threatening to push us all off.
 
Does that sound alarmist? Consider: Wikipedia brings together thousands of volunteers to curate a free, online encyclopedia about – well, everything – including the policies and personalities of repressive, homicidal regimes from Russia, to China, to North Korea.
 
In the last decade, the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that hosts Wikipedia, has received increasing requests to provide user data to governments and wealthy individuals. These foreign appeals not only seek to bowdlerize accurate information and censor editorial content, they also ask for personal data to enable retaliation against the volunteers who edit Wikipedia.
 
On one level, this is actually kind of funny. Dictators and cartel bosses who rule by terror at home are reduced to making polite requests to the Wikimedia Foundation because the current system denies them local access to Wikipedia data. The architecture of an open internet, which forbids forced data localization, thus throws up roadblocks for malevolent foreign interests that would access Americans’ online, personal information.
 
Now Americans’ privacy and the security of U.S. data is completely at risk because of U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s astonishing withdrawal of support for the underpinnings of a global internet before the World Trade Organization.
 
Tai’s move leaves the Biden Administration moving in opposite directions at once. With one hand, the Biden Administration recently issued an executive order cracking down on the sale of Americans’ personal data by data brokers to foreign “countries of concern.” With the other hand – the president’s trade representative – the U.S. offered to drop its long-standing opposition to forced data localization and to forced transfers of American tech companies’ algorithms to governments around the world. Tai would hand the keys to America’s digital kingdom to more than 80 countries, including China.
 
It is not only Americans who will be at risk, but political dissidents and religious minorities around the world.
 
“Growing requirements for data localization are happening alongside a global crackdown on free expression,” wrote the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Freedom House, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Internet Society, PEN America, and the Wikimedia Foundation. “And people’s personal data – which can reveal who they voted for, who they worship, and who they love – can help facilitate this … 78 percent of the world’s internet users live in countries where simply expressing political, social, and religious viewpoints leads to legal repercussions.”
 
The Biden Administration’s forced disclosure of source codes will undermine the national and personal security of our country. Why? And for what? We are not sure, but it is clear that it would put all Americans’ privacy and personal security at risk.