Telegram Violates GDPR, Says Federal Data Protection Commissioner

Federal Data Protection Commissioner: Telegram violates the GDPR

Enforcing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is proving difficult for the Federal Data Protection Commissioner Ulrich Kelber when it comes to the messenger service Telegram. A Freiheitsfoo activist complained that Telegram was not correctly processing a request for information about stored user data. The Dubai-based company is not easy to reach for authorities, as it does not meet the obligation under Article 27 GDPR to appoint a representative as a contact person for official inquiries. Telegram only refers to an address in Great Britain, but if a company does not have a branch in the EU, it must specify a contact person for the authorities.

The complaint is based on users being confronted with a chatbot when they try to start an information procedure with the operator of the chat service. Ultimately, the procedure comes down to the advice of installing the limited computer program for Telegram’s web service on a PC and using it to access data. Chat group activities and histories that the operator saves on servers in an unknown location are left out.

The German judiciary has been arguing with Telegram about compliance with the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). The Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) has issued two fines totaling 5.125 million euros against Telegram, which they have appealed. However, German prosecutors also complain about a lack of cooperation with Telegram, even in investigations into serious crimes.

Kelber’s team at the Federal Ministry of Defense (BMVg) and the General Customs Directorate were successful in getting information about stored data. Both departments asked for a “self-declaration” to find out where or in what context personal information was stored about suspects in the authorities. The BMVg even urged citizens to transmit sensitive personal data in unencrypted emails. When the Federal Data Protection Authority informed both offices of their different legal opinion, they gave in and assured that they fundamentally wanted to refrain from asking for more precise information requests.

Leave a Reply