Telegram v. Federal Security Services
Case Law- Country
- Country Location
Latitude: 55.84775990443999
Longitude: 37.50146462023251
- Country Location (linked Case Law)
- Russia
- Decision Date
- 8 de ago. de 2018
- Case Status
- Closed
- Case Outcome (Procedural)
- Affirmed Lower Court
- Case Outcome (Disposition)
- Criminal Sanctions
- Law or Action Upheld
- Keywords
- Anonymity
- Decryption
- Internet Service Providers
- Judicial Body
- Supreme Court (court of final appeal)
- Case Number
- APL 18-298 [АЛЛ 18-298]
- Case Summary
The Appellate Collegiate Body of the Supreme Court of Russia found that the Federal Security Services of Russia (FSS) had a lawful right to request that Telegram, a popular online messaging application, share with the FSS the keys needed to decrypt messages sent over its service. On April 14, 2017, the FSS sent a letter to Telegram’s offices in London asking the company to provide it with keys to decrypt messages sent from six mobile numbers. Telegram received the letter but never shared the decryption keys. The FSS initiated a legal action against Telegram alleging that, by failing to satisfy the request, the company had violated the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies, and Protection of Information”. The first instance court fined Telegram RUB 800,000 (around $13,000) for failing to comply with the FSS’s requests. Telegram appealed to the appellate court, and the Supreme Court of Russia, arguing that the Russian courts had no jurisdiction to determine such a case against a UK-based entity, and that the request was unlawful since it was not made pursuant to a judicial order. Both upheld the law allowing the FSS to request that Telegram share the decryption keys. Telegram then appealed to the Appellate Collegiate Body of the Supreme Court of Russia, which, among other things, reasoned that the rights to privacy and secrecy in correspondence did not extend to the keys and, therefore, the FSS did not require a judicial order before it could request their disclosure.
- Case Significance
The decision does not establish a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.
- Source Name and URL
- Columbia Global Freedom of Expression