Pedraz backs down and rules out blocking Telegram when he understands that it would be a disproportionate measure

Judge Santiago Pedraz has definitively annulled the precautionary blocking order of the Telegram messaging platform.

The magistrate has issued an order in which he annuls the temporary suspension of the resources associated with Telegram agreed to by the magistrate last Friday because “it would be an excessive and not proportional measure.”

This morning I had provisionally suspended the blocking request, but now the decision not to block the social network is final.

In his writing, the magistrate explains that a notorious fact has been confirmed that the instructor cannot ignore, and that is the possible impact of multiple users in the event of a possible suspension and with this it must be considered whether the measure is proportional or not.

The judge adds that for this reason a report was requested from the General Information Commission on the nature of Telegram as well as the impact of the precautionary measure of suspension on the users of this platform.

According to Pedraz, without prejudice to the fact that it is known that said platform is also used for criminal activities, “there are more than multiple users of all types (individuals, companies, officials, workers in general…) who have chosen to use Telegram, by providing them with benefits that other platforms do not provide. And all of this under protected privacy. It also means that they accept that the necessary guarantees for the protection of third-party rights are not carried out with the exchange of personal data between the users of the application. Definitely, transfer of fundamental rights in exchange for supposed privacy“.

For all these reasons, the order concludes that if the suspension were agreed upon it would mean “a clear harm to those millions of users who use this messaging application.

Furthermore, the judge relies on the police report provided to also indicate the economic impact that the precautionary suspension would have for companies or societies that carry out a large part of their communication activity through this platform, since they consider it a “reliable and safe channel against unwanted interventions.”

Ultimately, the judge concludes that It is not about freedom of expression or information, “but whether or not the measure is proportional. And what is confirmed, from what was said and after the order was issued, is that the measure would be excessive and not proportional.”