People are up in arms about this and the "stifling of free speech," but it seems like there is only one sentence in this article that really matters:
> "Telegram refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law."
Am I the only one who thinks that if you are a global company operating in a country and you refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena in that country, no one should be surprised when you get arrested? If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story. But no one has stated or implied that anywhere I have seen.
> "Telegram refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law."
Am I the only one who thinks that if you are a global company operating in a country and you refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena in that country, no one should be surprised when you get arrested? If they cannot comply, due to encryption, or a lack of logging, that may be a different story. But no one has stated or implied that anywhere I have seen.