Pavel Durov of Telegram states, Apple’s iCloud is officially a Surveillance Tool

On Telegram channel, its founder Pavel Durov made a statement that Apple‘s iCloud is now ‘officially a surveillance tool’. Further, Durov cited a Reuters report and stated that apps relying on it to store users’ private messages (such as WhatsApp) are part of the problem.

About two years ago, Apple was considering end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups. After doing that, Apple would be no longer able to access user data and share it with authorities when necessary. The company informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about its decision. However, the FBI objected to approving it. FBI cybercrime agents explained that after encryption, vital evidence wouldn’t be accessible when prosecuting an individual who used an iPhone for communication.

But FBI objection was not the only problem. In addition, Apple could face allegations from public officials claiming the company was protecting criminals. For Apple, that would undermine its reputation. Besides, the company faced Donald Trump’s accusation of refusal ‘to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers, and other violent criminal elements’. The accusation came after U.S. Attorney General William Barr publicly asked Apple to unlock two iPhones. These devices were used by a Saudi Air Force officer who shot dead three Americans at a Pensacola, Florida naval base last month. As a result, the company had to abandon its plan to fully encrypt Apple’s iCloud backups. As Apple former employee said, the company did not want to risk.

While Apple is obeying authorities’ decisions to save its goodwill, Telegram positions itself as a provider of ‘real privacy’. In 2018, the company refused to provide the encryption keys to user accounts to the Russian authorities. As a result, Russian authorities decided to block access to the messenger.

Currently, Telegram has a legal tussle with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Their battle seems to be endless, as more and more new details about the company’s Gram tokens appear. Besides, the association asked the court to ‘reject the SEC’s arguments that the not-yet-in-existence Grams were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreements.’