‘Restrictions end badly for those who impose them’: what IT specialists think about the potential blocking of Telegram

Recently, the Ukrainian government has faced increasing criticism and hints of potentially blocking the Telegram messenger app, similar to the way Russian social media platforms VKontakte and Odnoklassniki were banned.

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Alexey Danilov, recently described Telegram as a “dangerous and vulnerable” messenger. According to him, it is a “system of influence where people promote various things for money.” Danilov claims he is prepared to ban Telegram in Ukraine once the necessary documents are received.

However, according to a survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Telegram channels have become the primary source of information for Ukrainians during the ongoing conflict, with 44% of Ukrainians now obtaining information from Telegram channels, compared to 43% from television.

Journalists spoke to representatives of the IT industry to determine whether Telegram is genuinely dangerous and how feasible it is to block the messenger.

Dmitry Korchewski, Founder of the “ITSTEP” Computer Academy, said, “We know little about the architecture and security of Telegram, so no one can guarantee whether it is vulnerable or not. But currently, it is an excellent tool for freedom of speech, allowing anyone to express their opinions. Sometimes it can be unpleasant and potentially double-edged as a tool in the struggle.”

He does not believe Telegram poses a threat to national security, stating, “I think Telegram is like fire; it can provide warmth in one set of hands and destroy homes in others. Of course, it is possible to block Telegram if there is a desire. However, it’s not an easy task because the internet is a decentralized system. To block Telegram, you would need to centralize the internet, prescribe instructions across numerous servers located in different places and not owned by the state, and require all service providers to install the necessary software, as was done in Russia. In Ukraine, this would be more challenging, as we are not a totalitarian country where you can enforce laws to compel private companies to restrict internet resources. This would require exerting pressure and taking away what people enjoy using, which could lead to resistance.”

He emphasized his opposition to any state regulation of human life, saying, “I am against any government regulation of human life. There is a fine line here: it is not the messengers spreading this information, but people. Messengers are my private business, my thoughts; it is a constitutional right to have freedom of speech and expression. If it does not contradict civil norms, state law, or legislation, it is my personal matter. I believe that the state should not interfere in this.”

Maxim Tulev, Owner of the Net Assist Internet Service Provider and a member of the Internet Association, commented on Telegram’s potential blocking and its impact, “Telegram itself does not threaten Ukraine’s national security. There are concerns about the leakage of personal data to unknown parties, but that is a different issue. I understand that Danilov is referring to the uncontrolled spread of information, which he considers dangerous.”

He pointed out that Telegram is a system where Ukrainian censorship is currently impossible. “So, there are two options: accept it or fight it. I doubt that fighting it will be successful. Even in Russia, they failed to block Telegram; it technically resists attempts to block it.”

He explained that to block the Telegram app (not the website), the government would need to control all external channels and have monitoring and filtering systems at internet service providers. Technically, this is infeasible in the Ukrainian telecom architecture. Blocking Telegram could only be done with the complete shutdown of all Android and iOS services, meaning that all Apple and Google phones would cease to function. He doubted that they would take such a drastic step.

Regarding the potential blocking of other messengers in Ukraine, such as WhatsApp, Tulev stated, “To block Telegram in Ukraine, the state would need to control all external channels, have monitoring and filtering systems at internet service providers. In terms of the architecture of the Ukrainian telecom, this is unfeasible. Moreover, with tens of thousands of StarLink terminals, each subscriber having non-Ukrainian IP addresses, it becomes pointless.”

He stressed that regulating messenger apps requires contact between authorized state bodies and tech corporations. However, there is currently no legislation in place for regulating the use of specific messengers in Ukraine.

Tulev recommended consulting professionals from the Ukrainian telecom industry who could provide a better understanding of the challenges and feasibility of implementing such decisions related to technology and the internet.

He also highlighted the important role Telegram played during President Volodymyr Zelensky’s pre-election campaign in 2019. Blocking Telegram now seems strange, and historically, such bans have often not ended well for those who implement them.