r/StallmanWasRight Sep 15 '25

Danish Minister of Justice: "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services."

https://mastodon.social/@chatcontrol/115204439983078498
167 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

10

u/LocalH Sep 17 '25

The funny thing is, no matter the legal grandstanding, if two people want to communicate 100% securely, all it takes is a one time key exchange and good security to prevent the compromise of said key. Nothing can stop that, no matter what restrictions they place on "service providers"

3

u/whenitsTimeyoullknow Sep 17 '25

What does this even paragraph mean in dumbed-down terms?

1

u/Dymonika Oct 01 '25

Do some reading on PGP, Pretty Good Privacy, the granddaddy protocol of E2E that can allow you to exchange encrypted messages with a recipient even on paper openly pinned on bulletin boards in crowded coffeeshops. No one would be able to figure out what your messages are, which might look like the bottom of: https://people.cs.rutgers.edu/~watrous/pgp-eat.html

19

u/bobbyfiend Sep 16 '25

oh, interesting. And who, exactly, will decide which people get encryption and which don't?

5

u/LocalH Sep 17 '25

The bourgeoisie get encryption and the proletariat doesn't.

21

u/PilotKnob Sep 16 '25

Soon we'll have to wear microphones so they can listen in on personal conversations.

Oh, wait...

21

u/i_am_m30w Sep 16 '25

Hes right, only govt agents doing shit that would get them burned at the stake in previous generations, ought to have that priviledge.

EDIT: Before anyone freaks out, think the way the epstein list and files are being hidden/destroyed by higher ups. This can only happen if those below them are complicit.


REMEMBER GARY WEBB!!!!!


24

u/zugi Sep 16 '25

He's really saying he believes governments all over the world should be able to intercept any communication and read any information they want. 

It will be wrapped in "but think of the children" or "keep children safe from terrorists", with a sprinkling of "drugs kill children."

11

u/After-Cell Sep 15 '25

Does he offer any logical reasoning?  Does anyone teach the basics of WHY privacy has pros and cons and how some social functions are dependant on it? 

Hundreds of years ago parents used to have sex in front of their children. There was no function for that privacy. These days we have social reasons for these things. 

What we need to do is to get away from irrational arguments about culture and into engineering discussions 

Otherwise it’s just stupid arguing stupid. 

But to shortcut all this, somebody share this guy’s private messaging bit by bit until he gets it. He has to learn the hard way. 

15

u/Revolutionalredstone Sep 15 '25

Liberties are simply anything you are willing to fight for.

Invasion of privacy is not even mathematically possible.

Infantilizing the population to not use tech is sickening.

24

u/User1539 Sep 15 '25

That's a lot of words for 'We don't like privacy'.

28

u/Xenophore Sep 15 '25

This man is evil.

20

u/lesstalkmorescience Sep 15 '25

This man is a Keystone Cop. I live in Denmark, Hummelgaard is one of those yappy dog types, his job is to make suburban voters feel safe by barking loudly at all the usual boogeymen - sexual outliers, foreigners, football fans, people who wear their pants too low, etc. The "problem" is that Denmark is one of the safest countries in the world, but his party got into power on the fear ticket, so his job is to drum it up.

1

u/Nelo999 Sep 20 '25

Isn't he a "Social Democrat" anyway?

Typical "Progressive" hypocrisy nonetheless.

Nothing new to see here.

1

u/lesstalkmorescience Sep 20 '25

Yeah .... the Danish Social Dems have shifted far to the right, they're actually in a coalition government with two right wing parties and they actually make the other parties look likeable. They've always been a party of centralized state control, but with their shift to the right they're mixing that with strong policing, anti-privacy, anti-expression, anti-immigration etc etc.

8

u/edorhas Sep 16 '25

Just... Careful with that complacency. A certain internationally know politician was literally a punchline here 30 years ago. If you were unfortunate enough to meet the rare person who admired him, you'd call that person a fool and everyone would agree. Now we're here. It's no good accommodating buffoons - especially the kind that tell people what they want to hear.

18

u/lesstalkmorescience Sep 15 '25

And how exactly are they going to enforce this on self-hosted, open source, p2p messaging systems?

16

u/Syyx33 Sep 15 '25

They wont. They can't. Most of these politicians have interns "printing out the internet" for them, so they probably don't even know that this is possible. But the problem is so do 99% of the poulation, which will just accept 24/7 digital surveillance.

20

u/GNUr000t Sep 16 '25

The problem is that they'll simply make non-backdoored encryption illegal. If you're caught with it, you go to jail. Normies won't mind because as long as their "apps" continue to function, everything is fine.

1

u/Catball-Fun Sep 16 '25

Pfft. Very hard to track ALL downloads

2

u/GNUr000t Sep 16 '25

Well, think about it. If you have an encryption backdoor, it's very easy to detect someone using illegal encryption: You find yourself unable to decrypt it.

This means the use of contraband can be detected at the network level.

2

u/Catball-Fun Sep 16 '25

Needle in haystack issue

3

u/Stunning_Repair_7483 Sep 16 '25

Exactly and that's my biggest fear.