Telegram CEO says he was ‘surprised’ by his arrest and interrogation

               Telegram CEO Pavel Durov returned to the messaging platform Thursday, saying in a lengthy post that he was surprised to have been arrested and interviewed by French authorities less than two weeks ago in an investigation that has sparked debate about free speech and criminal activity online.

Durov was arrested at a Paris airport amid an investigation into suspected offenses related to criminal activity on Telegram, according to French prosecutors. He was later released from police custody bail set at $5.56 million as the probe unfolds.

Telegram, which Durov said had 950 million users, is used both as an everyday messaging tool and a way work around authoritative governments – but White supremacist groups and Isis also favor it.

Prosecutors are also probing Durov over alleged ‘acts of violence’ against his child in Switzerland.

In the Telegram post Thursday, his first since his arrest, Durov acknowledged that the app’s “abrupt increase” in users caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse the platform.

“That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon,” Durov said.

Durov said the app’s purpose is to protect users in authoritarian regimes. Durov noted the app refused to hand over “encryption keys” to Russia, resulting in a ban there. The app also was banned in Iran after the app refused to block channels used by protesters, he said.

“We are prepared to leave markets that aren’t compatible with our principles, because we are not doing this for money,” Durov said, saying that the app has left in cases where it “can’t agree with a country’s regulator on the right balance between privacy and security.”

Durov also disputed French authorities’ move to hold him personally liable.

“If a country is unhappy with an internet service, the established practice is to start a legal action against the service itself,” he said. “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach.”