According to numerous sources, with reference to the press service of Roskomnadzor, the agency appealed to the court with a complaint about blocking the Telegram messaging service. The suit was filed with the Tagansky District Court of Moscow and became a continuation of the multi-day debate on the functioning of the messenger in Russia.
"The statement of claim was filed in connection with the identification of the Russian Federal Security Service by the failure of Telegram Messenger Limited Liability Partnership to act as the organizer of the dissemination of information specified in article 10.1, paragraph 4.1.1 of this law [" On Information "]," the statement said.
Interfax also writes that the lawsuit filed by Roscomnadzor is related to the fact that Telegram did not provide encryption keys at the request of the FSB. Prior to this, Roskomnadzor gave Telegram a deadline to transfer the encryption keys to the FSB before April 4. However, echoing the previously stated position of Pavel Durov, the representatives of Telegram answered that this is impossible and does not fit into the framework of the current Constitution.
Recall, a few days ago, high-ranking officials of Iran started talking about the fact that Telegram and its ICO could undermine the national currency of the country.
Updated (12:40)
The lawyers of Telegram called the claim of Roskomnadzor filed on April 5 with the requirement to block the service in Russia unjustified.
Commentary was published by the head of the human rights organization "Agora" Pavel Chikov:
"There is no claim of Roskomnadzor. On the Tagansky court's website, there is no such case. There will be a lawsuit, it will be clear in what order the proceedings will take place, what are the grounds and so on. Telegram will prepare objections to the lawsuit, all documents, as always, will be published.
The position of Telegram remains the same - the requirements of the FSB to provide access to private correspondence of users are unconstitutional, not based on law, technically and legally unenforceable, therefore, the requirement of blocking is also unreasonable. "
The article is based on materials .
Comments
Post a Comment