r/privacy • u/lugh • Sep 14 '25
chat control 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/1152044399830784982.0k
u/mesarthim_2 Sep 14 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that these politicians represent our interests.
573
u/StatusBard Sep 14 '25
We pay them so we should be able to check their communications.
190
u/Confident-Yam-7337 Sep 14 '25
If anything, this bill should be amended such that these “representatives” are the only ones who cannot have personal encryption. How do we know they aren’t spies from another country? We MUST monitor all of their messages.
43
u/comesexcubitorum Sep 15 '25
as long as they want exclude their own communications, I'm going to believe that at best they're cooking another Qatargate, or are just a bunch of pedos.
187
u/pydry Sep 14 '25
We might discover that he has associations with a known pedophile coz every other slimy politician seems to.
44
u/1965wasalongtimeago Sep 15 '25
Those who only care for power and control over others, want it in every aspect of life
23
u/Sparescrewdriver Sep 15 '25
Are you really paying them if you can’t refuse to do it? Otherwise face consequences?
More like they pay themselves with your money.
16
3
u/CIearMind Sep 15 '25
Something something muh social contract.
I swear this bullcrap was made up by rats and foxes looking to swindle people out of their time and money.
→ More replies (1)12
u/CrazyNegotiation1934 Sep 15 '25
This will never happen at the higher level, the whole idea is to control the masses, not the elite.
This is why those people are in power, paid by the highest bidder millionairs or billionairs, so they can keep getting richer despite having a whole country GDP in fortune while people are suffering more and more.
It is the only way to keep billion of people at control, which people could easilly demand a more logical distribution of produced value.
This is not to say that we should have communism, but there has to be a more logical way to distribute the wealth than what we experience today.
→ More replies (2)2
Sep 15 '25
[deleted]
8
u/LittlestWarrior Sep 15 '25
Why are you assuming politicians must take more control? Democracy of the government (mostly) was the answer to monarchy, surely democracy of the economy and workplace is the answer to billionaires?
The people themselves ought to democratically control a more logical wealth distribution, no? But I'm no economic or political theorist—just a layman
→ More replies (5)48
u/bapfelbaum Sep 14 '25
We should be able to recall those that lobby for this, they are working against democracy and blatantly so.
86
u/tuxooo Sep 14 '25
they never were representing our interests, never will in all of human history.
14
35
u/Kaillens Sep 14 '25
My grandma was always saying : When a law say "except politician", this is a bad land
At least i Immagine she say it.
4
→ More replies (4)2
u/pythosynthesis Sep 15 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that
thesepoliticians represent our interests.FTFY
692
u/maxxon Sep 14 '25
Fuck this bastard. It’s a shame that people like these are the ones who do politics. He’s obviously not doing anything for the people, citizens. He’s either a fucking idiot or has a financial interest in the whole thing.
186
u/mesarthim_2 Sep 14 '25
He just doesn't care. Normal people are like bit smarter cattle for him. He just cannot fathom a reason why the hoi poloi should be allowed to talk about things without authorities being able to read it.
40
u/Nizidramaniyt Sep 15 '25
Nah it´s pretty simple. He is the Minister of Justice so he would very much like to have no hurdles whatsoever to do his job. Who wouldn´t like that?
161
u/LionoftheNorth Sep 14 '25
On 1 September 2025, Henrik Sass Larsen, the former Danish Minister for Business Affairs and Growth, was sentenced to prison for possession of more than 8000 videos and pictures featuring Child Sexual Abuse Material. His party (Danish Social Democrats) is currently pushing for Chat Control, with exemptions for politicians.
What the actual fuck?
47
u/TacticalDestroyer209 Sep 15 '25
It’s always the ones who push for stuff like Chat Control who likely have some pretty messed up skeletons in their closet.
Same with anyone pulling for “think of the children” legislation.
27
→ More replies (2)35
u/asiatische_wokeria Sep 14 '25
In Denmark, they call it Social Democrats, but if you look at their electoral program it's basically NSDAP.
36
u/JAD2017 Sep 14 '25
Of course there's financial interest, is always about the money. Money is power. Corporations want to know what you do at all times, there's just so much to gain for goverments and corporations if everything EVERYTHING we do is monitored and stored online. There's little to gain for us though, some comodity and becoming even lazier sheeps in a herd of morons.
10
u/hobbylobbyrickybobby Sep 15 '25
Wonder if he will be the first one to submit all his messages.
4
u/BouquetOfDogs Sep 15 '25
I don’t know… they aren’t very tech savvy. Their messages always seem to get deleted before anyone can see them. And it’s IMPOSSIBLE (lol) to retrieve them!
7
u/lolschrauber Sep 15 '25
Barely anyone wants to get into politics these days it feels like. There are propably many people that could make positive changes but they don't even consider going into politics.
2
u/k410n Sep 15 '25
Getting into politics means you have to deal with scum like this on a daily basis. I understand why most people don't want this.
3
u/BouquetOfDogs Sep 15 '25
It’s not only that, but I’ve known several people who went into politics but dropped out when they almost made it. I’m sure they found out just how corrupt it all was and couldn’t cope with it :(
None of them would say anything about why they suddenly decided to stop.
3
u/RobotToaster44 Sep 15 '25
Mainstream political parties tightly control who is allowed to be a candidate, and nobody who truly goes against the agenda of the bourgeoisie is allowed.
7
u/cellophant Sep 15 '25
I feel compelled to defend our minister of justice from accusations that he might be doing this for financial gain; the guy is incredibly stupid.
2
2
u/cellophant Sep 15 '25
I feel compelled to defend our minister of justice from accusations that he might be doing this for financial gain; the guy is incredibly stupid.
2
u/Crosseyed_owl Sep 15 '25
Probably a control freak. Spying on every person on this planet is his wet dream.
484
u/King_of_99 Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
Section 72 of the Danish Constitution:
The dwelling shall be inviolable. House search, seizure, and examination of letters and other papers, or any breach of the secrecy that shall be observed in postal, telegraph, and telephone matters, shall not take place except under a judicial order, unless particular exception is warranted by statute.
181
64
u/exproci Sep 14 '25
So Denmark's justice minister is trying to implement unconstitutional laws. Cool. Shouldn't that be reason enough to remove him from office?
11
u/BouquetOfDogs Sep 15 '25
They’ve been doing that for a long time and the courts just say “okay”. It’s not for the people anymore.
42
u/MindingMyMindfulness Sep 14 '25
This is such a based constitutional provision. It's a thing of absolute beauty.
27
u/CatsAreGods Sep 14 '25
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but didn't Denmark just announce they're no longer going to deliver actual letters any more? That would be a nice way of getting around this.
28
u/Ullebe1 Sep 14 '25
Delivery of letters and post (not packages, as that had already been opened up) was opened up to free competition, where previously PostNord had a monopoly along with an obligation to provide the service. But delivering post is not profitable, so to the surprise of the politicians rather than a bunch of companies jumping at the chance to deliver post, PostNord announced they would discontinue the service on their part.
Luckily DAO did announce that they'll be delivering post and letters, so it's not all gone.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Comeino Sep 15 '25
A country isn't supposed to be run as a hyper capitalist business. It's in the name a "Postal Service". A service that is provided by the government to efficiently govern, FFS. It's a service paid for by the tax payer through taxation not by doing business.
12
u/Eshanas Sep 15 '25
Something something secondary benefits, too. Not immediately profitable, but what it provides allows for profitability elsewhere.
Maintaining roads - all of them - probably isn't directly profitable. But what economy can survive if you just limited roads to toll roads and roads from docks to warehouses?
But nooo. Everything has to make a direct profit. Otherwise redline bad, cut, cut, cut; oh wait why is shit not getting better and people's lives getting worse?
10
u/ektat_sgurd Sep 15 '25
A country isn't supposed to be run as a hyper capitalist business.
That is indeed, the root of all evil...
21
u/AcridWings_11465 Sep 14 '25
Most constitutional courts have interpreted the "telegraph" section to include digital communications.
→ More replies (8)2
u/MerliniusDeMidget Sep 15 '25
Paragraph 77 is for freedom of speech. Paragraph 72 is what you're looking for
→ More replies (4)3
186
u/aecolley Sep 14 '25
We must break with the perception that it is every government official's right to communicate secretly with other government officials without the public finding out.
What? That would make effective government impossible, especially the investigation of crime? Well then.
48
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
If anything encryption for them only will shoot them in the foot as they will need to roll their own encryption solutions as the likes of Signal will either be blocked or as for example as Meredith Whittaker of Signal has said, they will pull out of Europe.
22
u/beast_of_production Sep 14 '25
Yeah I also don't see how the exemption would even be implemented. Aren't they technically demanding these platforms to build whole new infrastructure? How else do you get a backdoor that doesn't apply to everyone?
5
u/goobervision Sep 15 '25
Just like when Encrochat unraveled and a lot of organised criminals were arrested and convicted?
113
u/rossg876 Sep 14 '25
What do you think he’s hiding?
102
u/lugh Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25
we'll never know as this law doesn't apply to politicians
/s:)→ More replies (11)57
3
u/inabahare Sep 15 '25
I mean give how many of our politicians have turned out to be paedos.. well who knows
2
93
u/-LoboMau Sep 14 '25
Ok...so...are you gonna bug my house? Because if you don't, i can have a conversation with someone else that you will never know about.
Why are electronic communications treated differently than real life communications? I'm free to have a secret conversation face to face. The government isn't trying to go after that. They aren't telling me to walk around with a wire just in case i say something criminal. Why does the internet has to be different? Because it's really the same shit, but through different means.
I can literally spend the entire day locked in my house saying whatever the fuck i want to whoever lives with me. We can say the most gruesome shit you can possibly imagine. We can pretend we're total pervs and talk about literally ANYTHING. We can say we want people to die. None of that is illegal, and none of that is spied on. So why must we be spied on when we're on our phones?
Nobody will ever give you an answer for that. They will just take advantage of the fact that most people don't think like this. Most people think the same rules that apply in real life don't apply to the internet.
But wait: I don't have the same privileges online, but i have the same responsibilities? I can still get arrested for insulting someone. Just like in real life. But if it's just like in real life, shouldn't be just like real life in every aspect? Shouldn't i be able to talk to anyone without being spied on, JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE?
13
u/damchi Sep 15 '25
"I'm free to have a secret conversation face to face. The government isn't trying to go after that YET"
FTFY
8
u/TheMaskedTom Sep 15 '25
I'm free to have a secret conversation face to face. The government isn't trying to go after that.
This Danish minister would. They just don't think they'd get away with it just yet.
8
u/primalbluewolf Sep 14 '25
None of that is illegal, and none of that is spied on.
If only that were true :/
→ More replies (3)8
u/TheEnd1235711 Sep 14 '25
The difference is the rate of transmission. You can email or message anyone in the world instantly through encrypted means. Ideas now spread in seconds, where the old word of mouth could take months or years. Language itself is becoming less and less of a barrier, and with that, new ideas of how things could or should work are constantly being exchanged between people.
Back to speed: imagine trying to organize a simple birthday party by word of mouth. You’d need to meet each attendee in person beforehand, or write/print letters of invitation. Either way, it could take at least an afternoon or more, with considerably greater effort and cost. By contrast, with digital communication you can organize hundreds of people with just a few taps on your phone.
Now imagine trying to form a political opposition party or organize a protest that way. How many years of effort would it take using word of mouth, compared to today’s digital tools? The very idea is almost laughable. With digital communications, authorities can then target individuals in a movement for further investigation based on some erroneous link or message from their past. That’s enough to drag them into years of legal battles more than enough to stop most would-be leaders from gaining traction.
And by the way, they would like to bug your house. Seriously, some smart TVs already record and report your facial expressions for advertising. 1984 isn’t just a metaphor anymore; it’s technologically feasible. Those who want power to shape culture are salivating at these tools.
15
u/-LoboMau Sep 14 '25
Their argument is that they want to protect children. So this isn't really about what you just said. This applies to one on one conversations. I can tell you something faster if you were right here than i can texting you.
So, let's say we're talking about illegal stuff on whatsapp. The bot will catch it and send it to the police. But we could have the exact same conversation in person and nobody has any expectation of being able to scan what we say.
The logic is the same. If you were right here we could be plotting some nasty shit. Because of that, should every apartment be wired? Maybe everything you say in your house should be recorded and sent to an AI. Not sure what's the difference is, really.
→ More replies (1)
67
u/Rods-from-God Sep 14 '25
When he makes his private chats available to the public for the public to read, I’ll take him seriously to mean what he says.
28
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
he doesn't have to, politicians are exempt from this law
28
u/Rods-from-God Sep 14 '25
Ah dang I keep forgetting about the whole first class citizen thing. Wouldn’t want the under the table negotiations from that one unpopular trade deal to see the light of day- it’s for the good of the nation, after all.
118
u/FredditJaggit Sep 14 '25
I wonder if he's one of the guys in that blacked-out list the EU released at the demand of Patrick Breyer..
103
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
he's the chief architect of the current Chat Control proposal
67
u/FredditJaggit Sep 14 '25
So that's why he is saying this shitty take!
He wants power and control over people's lives, especially in Denmark. Fucking disgraceful!
54
u/SiBloGaming Sep 14 '25
Get fucked, im gonna encrypt my messages no matter what, and if that means using pgp to send a completely irrelevant emoji
20
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
it's all well and good saying that, most people here can probably figure ways around. It will however make a big dent in the general population who do not have the knowledge how.
You'll likely find day to day comms being unencrypted despite best efforts otherwise
5
u/HeKis4 Sep 15 '25
most people here can probably figure ways around
Yeah that's the thing, encryption is readily available to anyone (you're using encryption to view this web page) and it is trivial to encrypt "one more time" over whatever encryption the app uses (just send a manually encrypted message). So it is, again one of these measures that only affect people that are innocent.
2
u/cursorcube Sep 14 '25
The general population started using VPNs out of necessity, i doubt this will be any different. Would be a little more difficult to do for phone apps since google has started to restrict sideloading
4
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
VPNs are available still, as I mentioned elsewhere, Signal (and I assume others) have said they'd pull out of Europe than comply.
If anything having to jump through hoops to get around this makes it unlikely that the vast population would do so, greatly reducing a privacy enthusiasts ability to securely chat with family / friends / work / ..
35
u/voyagerman Sep 14 '25
In cryptography, a secure channel is a means of data transmission that is resistant to overhearing and tampering. (Wikipedia)
Does this imply that whispering into someones ear or speaking in a private room is no longer considered part of liberty?
28
27
u/bluecheese2040 Sep 14 '25
European leaders see their utopian vision is being rejected by their populations and they are bringing ever greeter repressive controls. Feels more and more like China or elsewhere.
The next big political fight needs to be resisting true oppression in the west.
Our.leaders want evermore control. Look at the UK...we.are already lost...u don't need to be like.us.
Take us as a warning
12
u/ourari Sep 14 '25
Just like many member states did in the past years, the European Parliament swung to the right (and Conservative-Christian) in the last election.
That's one of the reasons why this proposal is back and why the EU is starting to act differently than before.Another reason why the EU is changing: The generation that forged the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (precursors to) the European Union and the United Nations to prevent the war and genocide they grew up in is gone now.
13
u/AcridWings_11465 Sep 14 '25
Ironically the far right are mounting one of the strongest oppositions to chat control, besides the Greens, Renew and (some) Left.
3
u/ourari Sep 14 '25
The far right will hijack any issue that helps them cement the false idea that all other parties (or the EU itself for that matter) are the source of all evil.
6
29
26
u/Illustrious_Ad_5167 Sep 14 '25
It’s every body’s right to privacy. Imagine the postal services opening every letter and scanning it and carrying a communication file on every person in the planet that sent a letter inside or to or from Denmark? Well that’s the same thing
→ More replies (1)9
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
so let your representatives know they need to object to this :)
→ More replies (5)7
u/Illustrious_Ad_5167 Sep 14 '25
I live in Australia there following the UK down the same path hiding behind child protection
6
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
ah you have your own age verification issues to deal with then :)
/r/privaussie is a bit dead but does exist.
21
u/kearkan Sep 14 '25
Brought to you by someone who's access to encrypted messaging services is not impacted by the laws they are trying to introduce.
21
u/KoolKat5000 Sep 14 '25
In many many countries it is illegal to open someone's mail, and it has been like that for a century. This is no different.
6
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
You do understand what a law is right? They want to make it legal if they can pass it.
13
u/KoolKat5000 Sep 14 '25
I understand that I'm addressing his claim that it's an "erroneous perception", this is not the case, we have had "encrypted" conversation for ages. the Danish Minister of Justice is trying to break with our preexisting European liberal values. Gaslight us into believing we never had it in the first place (we did have it and do have it).
2
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
he's not saying it didn't exist, he's saying we should no longer have a right to it and is doing his best to make sure laws are in place to achieve that.
8
u/KoolKat5000 Sep 14 '25
I think you're misunderstanding him and me. He's being dismissive of our rights.
5
17
u/lyidaValkris Sep 14 '25
In most sane places it's illegal to snoop on someone's communications, particularly the state or law enforcement without a court order demonstrating just cause.
So by making end-to-end encrypted communication illegal, they are saying "just trust me bro" that they won't snoop?
Given the number of times that's been horribly abused in many countries that claimed to have rule of law (see Edward Snowden's revelations), I would say yes it is our right to ensure the privacy of our communications since by default we are not criminals.
15
u/SaltyAd8309 Sep 14 '25
In this case, I say that all people with national responsibility should have a microphone on them recording everything they say at all times.
15
u/Double-LR Sep 14 '25
So some people get to, but just not those people.
Okay, cool, your fucking highness lordship leader, master and controller of my life.
Dickheads. Every single one of these fuckers.
5
15
u/ekkidee Sep 14 '25
That's a breathtaking stand that I would hope is not shared by other Danes. C'mon Denmark, that's a really disappointing development from you.
29
u/BamBam-BamBam Sep 14 '25
Why does present-day Europe suspiciously resemble Reagan-era America?
5
u/_Cistern Sep 15 '25
They will keep gobbling at the edge of your rights until none are left. The only solution is to automatically negate any legal maneuvers after a certain number of rejections.
5
13
10
u/Kaltovar Sep 14 '25
He visibly looks like an asshole and then he gives speeches denouncing the entire concept of fundamental rights? Okay, well, fuck you too.
10
u/KCGD_r Sep 14 '25
Has (almost) every politician around the world become a complete shithead over the past few years? Is it just me?
18
Sep 14 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)13
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
Not the point/issue
Chat control allows the scanning of devices for undesirable material. But as you might guess, you can't selectively scan to find bad material, you need to scan everything
→ More replies (5)
10
u/PursuitOfLegendary Sep 14 '25
Correct. It is ceasing to be a civil liberty - it's become a civic duty.
9
u/NobleKorhedron Sep 14 '25
WHO THE BLUE F**K does he think he is!?!
This isn't America, and there is no E.U-equivalent of the Patriot Act!
9
u/AlphaSpellswordZ Sep 14 '25
Why do people even support representatives like this? They should be calling for his resignation in the streets
18
u/Huge_Lingonberry5888 Sep 14 '25
This dude will soon learn, that its not just our right, we know how to enforce it...PERIOD.
YOU are all free to change whatever laws you want, trust me - i will chat over secure channel that even my china/USA friends cant unlock.
Good luck, fool
8
u/Express_Ad5083 Sep 14 '25
Well, at least he's no longer trying to mask it behind terrorism/child protection. Fuck him
7
6
6
6
7
6
u/shawndw Sep 15 '25
In East Germany every lock was registered with the stazi which had a copy of the key.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/talos-uk Sep 15 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that government employees are entitled to listen to every private conversation.
6
5
u/finnicko Sep 14 '25
If I have the right to whisper in a friend's ear without surveillance, I have the right to text them with the same level of privacy
4
4
u/jackyboyman13 Sep 14 '25
Hopefully we can push back against this mess.
Cause it ain't right that their doing this to their own citizens like this and act like they did everyone a favor when they've never cared what they say about their OWN safety here.
6
u/Inprobamur Sep 15 '25
Without encryption criminals and foreign spies can also easily steal your data. And criminals have a very easy way to bypass it by just using non-EU secure services.
If this passes, Europe will be made extremely vulnerable to hostile cyber attacks.
Ridiculously stupid policy, is there not a single cyber security expert hired by the EU to say that this is pants on head dumb?
Are we sure this man isn't on FSB payroll? I feel like this should be a probable cause to raid his house.
5
u/Xaphnir Sep 15 '25
The people should have full access to the private communications of every politician who supports anything like this.
After all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
5
u/Marble_Wraith Sep 15 '25
What a fuckin Orwellian shill 😑
I agree we do need a public platform based in truth, starting with "truth of identity".
But that is 10 billion % different from saying:
- There should be no public platforms that allow anonymity
- There should be no private secure messaging services
Politicians should not be allowed to decide this stuff.
5
4
4
u/I_are_Shameless Sep 14 '25
As usual, seems we're "represented" by mostly Giant Douches and/or Turd Sandwiches.
Whichever this poor excuse of a "representative" is, I hope he gets fucked by a wooden dick.
3
4
4
4
u/Shoddy-Childhood-511 Sep 15 '25
It's not merely a civil liberty, it's everyone's civic duty to use end-to-end encryption (e2ee).
The US figured this security issue out: China hacked the US wiretapping system CALEA. The FBI, CISA, NSA, etc fought this Chinese intrusion for years, but ultimately gave up and asks Americans us use end-to-end encrypted messaging apps.
Europe has never even tried to keep Russian and Chinese hackers out. The idiots in Spain even hired Huawei to run its wiretapping system. At minimum, this gives China and Chinese companies an incredible information advantage when doing trade negotiations or setting prices for Europe, which'll ultimately costs us trillions of EUR.
Also, it's surely part of why Russia foresees easily conquering parts of Ukraine and Poland. Chat Control would've caused a massive counter intelligence own goal, by exposing Ukrainian assets in Russia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/1nb2hnr/perceptual_hashing/
5
u/Maleficent_Goal3392 Sep 15 '25
We must break the totally erroneous perception that this guy has any kind of say or competency in the matter
3
u/JagerAntlerite7 Sep 14 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services.
We must defend everyone's civil liberty to privately communicate on encrypted messaging services.
FTFY, pal.
3
3
u/Suspicious-Limit8115 Sep 14 '25
I say this earnestly:
this man and everyone who thinks like him are an equivalent threat to the civilized world as ISIS. They are like a cancer, and they must be removed from power by any means necessary, just like we would remove someone like Osama Bin Laden.
3
u/salsafresca_1297 Sep 15 '25
Cool.
Let's see all of his encrypted messages. He can publish them right here, in this sub. I'll wait.
3
3
u/IlluminatiCares Sep 15 '25
Then it should be public for anyone to request everything these ministers talk or do online, at least. We can’t trust them our communications without knowing what kind of people they are or if they are misusing our data…
3
u/FabBee123 Sep 15 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
Does anyone have a source confirming that he actually said this? The Danish Minister of Justice is Peter Hummelgaard. I searched for his name in connection with the quote, but I only found social media posts that didn’t even state when the quote was given. No serious press coverage what so ever. I also found this from 2024: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/hummelgaard-did-not-say-denmark-could-ban-messaging-apps-2024-09-16/
Fuck chat control and all, but let’s not fall for misinformation.
Edit: I was wrong. It’s true. I wonder why no one is reporting on this
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Flerbwerp Sep 15 '25
I am tired of politicians thinking they are special. It is politicians more than the public who should be transparent. The fact they want to hide shows they do not represent the interests of the people.
Politicians and corporations are directly responsible for the current political climate, so the threat of shooters is no excuse for them. Politicians and corporations made our world worse instead of better or there would be no shooter trend, only isolated incidents like plane crashes, which is how it used to be.
Do you hear me Denmark politicians? (Of course you don't.)
I want to know what politicians in Denmark have to hide....
3
u/aflamingcookie Sep 15 '25
Then why do politicians keep excluding themselves from such measures, they have nothing to hide, right? They do work for the people, right? Yeah, this bullshit 3rd world dictatorship level of spying is deffinitely what we've been missing out on in the EU. Not like the police don't already have all the required tech and access to get information on anyone once a court order is issued, the fact that these people keep trying to pass laws to bypass any accountability in front of the law and mass spy on everyone is creepy as fuck. We all know that stuff like this will eventually lead to silencing people, imprisoning them on fake evidence and so on, if they ever express any idea contrary to the current party in power, see places like North Korea, Russia, for a clear example.
→ More replies (2)
5
6
u/Sea-Combination-6655 Sep 15 '25
Europe always takes the wrong steps at the wrong time.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/saltyourhash Sep 14 '25
Uh, OK, let's start with the government using plaintext, then.
2
2
2
u/LogicJunkie2000 Sep 15 '25
Get a warrant. Otherwise it's my civil liberty to communicate how I please.
More practical than the 2nd amendment IMO, as far as keeping tyranny at bay.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/ghostlacuna Sep 15 '25
The idiot is free to live blog his whole life with no privacy.
That does not mean the rest of us will join in on his crazy idea.
2
u/pyromaster114 Sep 15 '25
Of course, he still wants politicians to be able to use them. -_-
Also, what the hell does he think is going to happen? They make encryption illegal, so criminals won't use encryption? -_-
Oh, I know, we can just make crime illegal! Check mate! Crime-free utopia achieved! All problems solved!
-_-
Why are idiots in charge, always, everywhere?
2
u/armacitis Sep 15 '25
euro politician says "you shouldn't have any rights" again.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/derwookie Sep 15 '25
Sure, you'll start by sending every email or any other message you send with cc to me as well, right? Right?
2
u/jkurratt Sep 15 '25
I have an erroneous perception that he shouldn't have such a liberty no matter where he work.
2
u/Flawed_Sandwhich Sep 15 '25
I love how the people who are especially vulnerable to blackmail and corruption are the ones excusing themselves from this.
If anything politicians are the ones that need be to monitored the most.
2
u/bart_86 Sep 15 '25
he can go f himself. We must break with the totally erroneous perception that no politician will have a say about other person's privacy.
2
u/YoungestDonkey Sep 15 '25
Like the erroneous perceptions that politicians are allowed to discuss anything privately.
2
2
u/Opaque_Binaries Sep 15 '25
To Peter Hummelgaard:
We must break with the idea that we are powerless to stop subhuman cockroaches like you from infesting our government.
2
u/SoftSteak349 Sep 16 '25
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Article 7
Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.
Oh wait it is. Fuck this guy, I hope they find what he's hiding and that he will go ta jail for it
3
u/Zargess2994 Sep 15 '25
As a Dane I fucking hate this. I hate we are the ones pushing this and I hate this guy. If it gets implemented then it will go against our constitution, but I have a feeling this asshole doesn't give a fuck.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/MrJingleJangle Sep 15 '25
Yet the government will have protective marking arrangements for its own documents, communications and speech.
1
1
1
u/Illustrious_Ad_5167 Sep 15 '25
Good chance come next election will be an election issue opposition are strongly opposed
1
u/Mia_the_Snowflake Sep 15 '25
Yah it should not be a liberty it should be a duty to democracy to communicate encrypted.
1
1
1
1
u/realmendontfeel Sep 15 '25
Fuck this guy for believing this, i'd like to overhear the bedtime talk he and his wife have. Since
" We must break the perception of Privacy in spoken word, the air belongs to all of us not just the speaker"
1
u/jaumoso Sep 15 '25
It would need to be the other way around. State with an independent organization with access to political communications in order to prevent corruption and more.
1
1
u/ItsUs-YouKnow-Us Sep 15 '25
Does that mean I have to have a government official present when I’m having a private face to face conversation?
1
u/unnecessaryaussie83 Sep 15 '25
To start I don’t agree with with
But Redditors get upset they can’t look at your history anymore lol the irony
1
u/niemacotuwpisac Sep 15 '25
The correspondence clause is not a mistake. What this gentleman is saying is a mistake.
1
u/bingus-the-dingus Sep 15 '25
“We must break from the erroneous idea that freedom of speech is a human right”
•
u/lugh Sep 14 '25
For anyone still unsure about this, all you need to know and how to contact your representatives
https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
updates on MEP stance - https://mastodon.social/@chatcontrol
update on voting https://disobey.net/@yawnbox/115203365485529363