MANILA, Philippines – The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) via an interview on DZRH, Tuesday, February 24, floated the idea of banning the encrypted messaging app Telegram. 

This comes on the heels of a proposal to ban another messaging app Signal earlier this month. 

DICT Secretary Henry Aguda said the agency is studying a potential ban over the alleged proliferation of pornography, and illegal gambling operations conducted via the app. He also said that they have encountered difficulties communicating with Telegram to coordinate regarding these issues. 

Less than two weeks ago, the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) also raised the possibility of banning a similar app Signal, citing concerns of “spoofing,” specifically high-ranking government officials, ABS-CBN reported. 

CICC head Renato Paraiso was quoted by the site as saying that spoofed messages on the app could be made to look like “someone is transacting with government officials regarding the flood control scandal” which could then be used to frame them. 

Several IT rights groups such as Democracy.net.PH, the Computer Professionals’ Union, and Data and Ethics PH, pushed back against the proposal, saying it would impinge upon people’s right to communicate in private. 

Signal is also known as a tool used by journalists to communicate securely with sources, similar to how Telegram is also used. 

Index on Censorship reported in 2021 the value of the app for dissidents, or in places where there is a crackdown on free speech: 

“Telegram, and other encrypted messaging services, are crucial for those intending to organize protests in countries where there is a severe crackdown on free speech. Myanmar, Belarus and Hong Kong have all seen people relying on the services. 

“It also means that news sites who have had their websites blocked, such as in the case of news website Tut.by in Belarus, or broadcaster Mizzima in Myanmar, have a safe and secure platform to broadcast from, should they so choose.” 

One way that Signal differs from Telegram is that the former only has end-to-end encryption. Messages can only be read by the devices participating in a chat. 

Telegram, by default, uses cloud-based encryption, meaning messages stored on Telegram’s server can be decrypted even without the actual device used to communicate. Theoretically, a state can force Telegram to access messages. 

Telegram users can turn on “Secret Chats” for Signal-like end-to-end, device-only encryption.

Historically, Telegram has pushed back at least once against such attempts amid the Hong Kong protests, for instance, when it didn’t comply with Chinese authorities trying to access data “until an international consensus is reached in relation to the ongoing political changes in the city.”

Telegram has said they won’t censor government criticism but its privacy policy also states “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.”

Two instances are cited by Pew Research when Telegram accepted fair and justified state requests: It removed far-right content in Germany, and banned pro-ISIS channels in Indonesia over threats to ban the app. 

Telegram was founded by the brothers Pavel and Nikolai Durov in 2013.

The Global Investigative Journalism Network also notes several other features that make it valuable to journalists including the “self-destruct mode” which lets users set an expiration data for messages; and the ability to be anonymous by letting users hide their phone number from all users, and letting them have an empty username.

Given Signal and Telegram’s similarities, and its benefits for journalists and staying anonymous, the Computer Professionals’ Union’s statement on the proposed Signal ban rings true for Telegram too:

“Platform bans are band-aid solutions that are easy to bypass; VPNs and alternative platforms exist. Those intent on committing fraud will adapt. Ordinary users — journalists, activists, professionals, and private citizens who rely on secure communication — are the ones who stand to lose.”

Prior to floating the idea of the bans, the DICT also proposed mandatory social media registration that also drew criticism from privacy advocates. – Rappler.com