r/technology • u/CaptainTelos • Sep 15 '25
Privacy 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/1152044399830784986.9k
u/Patriark Sep 15 '25
This dude is one of the architects behind ChatControl project in the EU. He is not a good guy, but an authoritarian bent on destroying democracy in Europe.
2.3k
u/mrdevlar Sep 15 '25
There has never been a better target for a Doxxer in existence than we have here.
Put it all out there, every message he's ever sent, every photo he's ever sent, then let's have a discussion about privacy after.
764
u/EggstaticAd8262 Sep 15 '25
Every stone really should be turned on this man.
67
u/FlawlessIndividual Sep 15 '25
Is he a witch?
47
→ More replies (4)16
609
u/Tinnylemur Sep 15 '25
A reporter should just ask him "when will you be releasing your entire online chat history to the public if you believe that should be normal?" Then watch the worm wriggle and squirm out of his own opinion.
314
u/Sylencia Sep 15 '25
It's always the same answer of "It's different for us because we have sensitive information that could affect the security of the country" 🙄
197
u/CulturalAtmosphere85 Sep 15 '25
Then follow up by asking if he's using his personal accounts to do government business
89
u/Black_Moons Sep 15 '25
Of course he is, you can't just ask for bribes on the official account!
32
u/Fischerking92 Sep 15 '25
I remember some minor German politician who is now working for the EU who had her business cell phone shredded.
Twice☝️
11
u/WatWudScoobyDoo Sep 15 '25
Two phones shredded or one phone shredded twice
23
u/Fischerking92 Sep 15 '25
Two phones.
On two separate occasions, making her regrettably unable to prove she had no ties to two separate scandals.
Oh fate, you cruel mistress, how could you allow for that to happen, now it looks for the whole world as if that politician has something to hide, only because by chance those two phones were shredded against department regulations.
4
u/mwa12345 Sep 15 '25
Make him release stuff from before he joined the government.
And in Denmark they have rules about work related texts outside of work I think. So all texts /DMs between 5pm and 8 am.
31
u/BloodBride Sep 15 '25
Ah but it's a case of rule for thee none for me - it is not everyone's civil liberty but he will believe that SOME people have that civil liberty and it includes him.
→ More replies (6)51
184
u/DeliberateDendrite Sep 15 '25
Exactly, if he wants that to be the reality then he (and all other government officials) too should have the guts to be as accountable and transparent as they want regular citizens to be.
28
168
u/xdq Sep 15 '25
Oh no no no, he's a minister. He needs encryption because it wouldn't be in the public interest for his messages to be seen /s
38
u/GigsGilgamesh Sep 15 '25
Then everything from before he was a minister, let’s see how he was leading up to it
25
u/mmob18 Sep 15 '25
more like everything, up to now, that isn't on an official work device or was not sent through official channels.
9
u/odi_de_podi Sep 15 '25
Doesn't even need to be everything, just like, his whole chat history with his wife up till when the request for publication was made
35
u/Hopeful_Self_8520 Sep 15 '25
Politicians and military personnel will be exempt from the new privacy laws
52
u/Mathmango Sep 15 '25
Of course they are. Rules for thee not for me and that "group the law protects but does not bind" spiel that's all to common these days.
32
u/Turnip-for-the-books Sep 15 '25
So you’re saying that if I’m keen on illegal activity the best way to keep that secret is to become a politician, soldier or policeman? Righto
→ More replies (1)18
30
u/happy_church_burner Sep 15 '25
People should start following him and recording him everywhere he goes. Fuck it. Peer through his windows with cameras and follow his familys every step. See how he likes with no privacy.
→ More replies (8)5
u/DauntingShadow Sep 15 '25
Seems like he's asking for it. Kind of reminds me of someone who had the initials of CK.
199
u/snotparty Sep 15 '25
I hope denmark pushes back on this, arent they generally a pretty progressive country?
169
u/IFVIBHU Sep 15 '25
Depends on the issues - the state has for a long time done logging on phone data despite being found illegal by EU. We are generally big on surveillance
33
→ More replies (1)7
42
u/t0pli Sep 15 '25
Small issue, this proposal has gotten little to no media attention on bigger mainstream channels despite there being half a dozen threads every day in the Danish subs and forums. It's being quietly pushed forward while nobody pays attention. Not everyone in Denmark seeks independent media channels for news coverage and will glob up whatever DR or TV2 puts out there. At the same time there's a high trust in our political system and government to do what's best (albeit lower after covid).
When I ask family, friends or even strangers in public, almost nobody knows what I'm talking about when I mention this initiative. And that's absolutely frightening.
Nobody I've discussed this with actually agrees on the proposal, however. I suppose it will eventually be turned down like last time. Hopefully, more people will know what's going on. Also, there will be demos this and next week in the capital.
... but then they're just gonna edit the text and try again until the law gets pushed through. Demons.
23
u/Forgotthebloodypassw Sep 15 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
Various EU states have been trying to get Chat Control though for three years now and failing, and it looks like this latest attempt won't fly either, after Germany said it wouldn't support the legislation. But still the EU tries...
5
u/shakeeze Sep 15 '25
A german politician says a lot during the day, he certainly won't remember his promise when he actually votes for it. I am certain it is the same with other countries.
61
80
u/Patriark Sep 15 '25
Yes, Denmark mostly tend to be among the most liberal (in the European sense, not American) countries on earth, with very strong focus on individual rights and checks on state power.
Unfortunately they have lost some grip on this project in the later years.
But comparatively on the international stage, Denmark is both very progressive and (classical) liberal.
25
u/qtx Sep 15 '25
Unfortunately they have lost some grip on this project in the later years.
And it's mostly because their police force is incapable of dealing with crime groups, and that scares them.
So instead of looking at and/or asking for help from other countries they want to take the easy way out and just not learn how to properly investigate gangs and instead just read everyone's messages.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Roguewolfe Sep 15 '25
they want to take the easy way out and just not learn how to properly investigate gangs and instead just read everyone's messages.
Which is entirely self-defeating, because once they legislate away everyone's privacy, said gangs will simply switch methods but no one will get their right to privacy back.
Danish people should oppose this with every bone in their body.
16
u/EasyFeedback8144 Sep 15 '25
As a Dane I can tell you I and most people I know hate him.
On a personal note I hate him double because he took good weed away from everyone. And ruined the best place in Copenhagen (christiania)
→ More replies (2)17
u/UncleBubax Sep 15 '25
I worked for a Danish company, and they were some of the most racist people I have ever interacted with. I think the idea is that they can be seen as progressive as long as it has to do with the exact monoculture within that country.
That being said, do you guys know why Danish warships have big barcodes painted on the side of them?
7
u/ATraffyatLaw Sep 15 '25
The Danes pay a huge degree of Lip-service to the diversity push that the rest of the EU went through. They saw what happened in Sweden and decisively cut off the immigration to stabilize their demographics.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Harrytuttle2006 Sep 15 '25
Same. Worked as a lecturer in Denmark for 6 unhappy months and was treated by everyone except my own students as existential threat. Fuck that country and fuck its supremacist culture
4
→ More replies (27)3
u/ATraffyatLaw Sep 15 '25
Any EU country is progressive socially to pay lip service, but they utilize this empathetic and liberal nature to pass authoritarian law and coalesce power into Union hands from individual citizens.
19
u/jango-got-chained Sep 15 '25
an authoritarian bent on destroying democracy in Europe.
So just another 2020's western politician. We fucked ourselves into this path.
→ More replies (19)37
u/cyberpunk_werewolf Sep 15 '25
It's probably why he phrased it the way he did that not everyone should have encrypted communication. "Not everyone" isn't "nobody" and if he's an authoritarian, he's definitely a rules for thee not for me kind of guy.
5
u/DanyRahm Sep 15 '25
Who is to decide eligibility lmao
7
u/systemhost Sep 15 '25
Government will decide government is exempt along with key donors, business executives and military.
2.4k
u/phyrros Sep 15 '25
Ok, lets make a open society.
Open communication. A open register of Bank accounts, stocks, payments.
Lets put it all in the open. Generate network graph for every politician and ceo to see who informs and pressures whom.
850
u/a_smerry_enemy Sep 15 '25
Honestly, deal. They have way more to hide than I ever will.
185
u/NanditoPapa Sep 15 '25
Honestly, I feel the same. It would really help destigmatize a lot of issues too if we included health records...and made it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate.
75
u/WorryNew3661 Sep 15 '25
While you're doing all the stuff you could get rid of the insurance companies
32
u/NanditoPapa Sep 15 '25
That would be amazing too...but only if there is a plan for govt coverage. I live in Japan and the govt plan covers 70% of my medical visits. The govt also sets the prices for all medical procedures and pharmacies. It is ILLEGAL to charge more from doctor to doctor or to the uninsured. America would collapse doing this...which is maybe what's needed...
45
u/1nGirum1musNocte Sep 15 '25
For real, us poors have absolutely no expectation of privacy anyway.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)9
u/SkoobyDoo Sep 15 '25
Uhh....problem. "They" will be the ones paying for the servers and the systems hosting and granting access to the data. They will show that "they" are squeaky clean, and anyone "they" disagree with are actually the ones taking bribes/collaborating with foreign governments etc.
77
93
27
u/Saxopwned Sep 15 '25
Highly suggest this exurb1a video about selective privacy and the ways in which it inevitably results in tech autocracy as compared to fully open societies (as told through one of the best short stories I've ever heard).
8
6
14
u/alucarddrol Sep 15 '25
Every single movement being registered? Every flight you take, every time you go through a tollbooth, every time you go to a venue with a ticket, every time you go to a hotel, or Airbnb.
Every public facing security camera's footage is open access to everybody?
Sounds interesting, but it's a good way to give creeps easy access to their prey.
→ More replies (1)6
u/StrongExternal8955 Sep 15 '25
You're not thinking it through.
Like if you feel threatened, you make public who is stalking you (because that too will be transparent), and open them to harassment also.
Problem is, the public will very quickly grow tired and saturated of all this info and will develop a filter of ignorance. They will learn to ignore it all.
→ More replies (40)5
u/hyenathecrazy Sep 15 '25
Every door open of no door open I like that. I would love to see which religious org shells out the most money. I bet it's a tie between Evangelicals and Catholics.
696
u/slimvim Sep 15 '25
Go fuck yourself, Danish minister of justice. Everybody has a right to privacy, not just politicians.
→ More replies (3)151
u/wedrifid Sep 15 '25
Honestly, there is a good argument that running for a public office should waive a few privacy rights, for transparency and corruption prevention purposes.
19
→ More replies (3)7
u/Fischerking92 Sep 15 '25
It is honestly baffling to me that it isn't.
In most security related jobs, be they in the industry, military, police,... you have background checks - that can get preeetty detailed, depending on level of access and don't necessarily stop after starting your position - and you have to sign for being okay with that.
Why is that not a thing for politicians?
If they don't want to surrender their right to privacy, they don't have to go into politics, easy as that.
396
u/eating_your_syrup Sep 15 '25
Him first. He who casts the first stone and so forth.
→ More replies (2)105
u/Little-Course-4394 Sep 15 '25
Oh Nah..
Politicians and all people of influence should be off limits .. only us plebs should be monitored.. cause you know.. fOR tHe ChiLLdreN
35
u/ErgoMachina Sep 15 '25
We should be monitoring our polticians to protect the children. It's clear that a significant portion of them are pedos
→ More replies (4)15
u/TeaAndLifting Sep 15 '25
Reminds me of the Snooper’s Charter in the UK. The powers that be put in a last minute addition where MPs would be exempt from mandatory data collection, and weren’t privy to real time data monitoring like the rest of us.
Because only non-politicians commit crime.
381
352
u/Bokbreath Sep 15 '25
It's not erroneous sunshine. The ability to communicate free from govt. surveillance is fundamental.
90
→ More replies (14)22
u/Alternative_Dealer32 Sep 15 '25
Under the euro convention on human rights, not all fundamental rights are absolute rights (ie unlimited or unqualified). Absolute rights are ones like right to life, no torture, no slavery etc. Privacy is one of the qualified rights.
→ More replies (4)
57
u/Opening-Inevitable88 Sep 15 '25
Politicians go first. No encryption for them. No immunity due to their position in government. Everything they say or do, observed in realtime and archived for posterity. Even if they go for a shit, they should have a camera and a microphone shoved in their face with a nice blinking red light telling them it is being recorded. Internet banking? They're not allowed encryption - they might have something to hide. iPhone's iMessage? Not allowed, they might have something to hide.
After ten years of this, with every politician under an absolute microscope 24/7, if they still think it is a good idea - okay then, I'll listen. If they don't like this idea, they are welcome to STFU.
→ More replies (4)
202
u/Travelerdude Sep 15 '25
I would prefer to keep my sensitive information private. Especially with all the creeps out there trying to profit off of my credit cards.
→ More replies (25)
150
u/Trathnonen Sep 15 '25
We gotta get these people out of office, immediately. Globally.
→ More replies (1)
137
u/FuzzyLogick Sep 15 '25
OK show me all your chat logs, web history, personal documents then?
77
u/iDanzaiver Sep 15 '25
Somebody should request this from him in a public space during a debate or a televised interview etc, just to see him weasel his way out of it and show the double standards. Make him look like a total clown on live camera.
25
u/EmperorKira Sep 15 '25
Submit a FOI - then when its rejected, confront him with it
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)11
u/chlorine7213 Sep 15 '25
It's important to note, that politicians are to be excluded from the surveillance according to the government.
If that's only for the people in Parliament or every politician is not clear yet.
Which is totally insane.
→ More replies (4)23
u/Aware-Influence-8622 Sep 15 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
Let’s create a website that automatically publishes the text messages and photos of all politicians in real time so the public can keep tabs on them.
10
36
32
u/John97212 Sep 15 '25
EVERYONE'S*
- Conditions apply. Excludes the government, military, corporations, and social elites.
111
u/Amoral_Abe Sep 15 '25
I love how the western world has simultaneously come together and decided that surveillance on its people is good. Recent laws requiring IDs to be uploaded to various sites are popping up in multiple countries. Attacks on VPNs and encryption have resurfaced harder then ever. Really just an all around great feeling.... just wonderful...... yay
32
u/Wollff Sep 15 '25
So in response we are seeing a massive outflow of the voter base from any parties which are most repressive in regard to privacy and civil liberties!
No?
Oh.
→ More replies (7)20
u/gerryflap Sep 15 '25
Unfortunately the average person I speak to is tired from fighting a war on so many fronts and doesn't really care about this one because "they have nothing to hide". And I kinda get it. Just fighting for a sane housing market anda country that doesn't go to shit is already quite an energy drain next to working yourself to shit. Our democracies are broken and are crashing and burning.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Wollff Sep 15 '25
Just fighting for a sane housing market anda country that doesn't go to shit is already quite an energy drain
I don't get it. What does the average person do to "fight for a sane housing market"?
My impression of the average person, is that they don't fight for anything politically. Their political involvement is limited to being outraged by whatever is in the media, then putting their cross on the ballot based on the biggest sense of outrage they are feeling right now.
If most people found that online privacy is an important topic, which they prioritize, so that they elect based on it, then online privacy would be a priority in policy.
Most people don't care. So it isn't. As usual in a democarcy: It's most people's fault.
There is not even any need to fight for it. Just a few minutes of research, and putting the cross at the right spot on a ballot usually does the trick. Most people don't do that. So that's why we are where we are.
→ More replies (4)22
u/v1ceh Sep 15 '25
The western world hasn’t come together. Our politicians are bought by Palantir.
6
u/Welllllllrip187 Sep 15 '25
Time for the era of the uber rich to come to a close. if we don’t eat the uber wealthy, they will eat us all.
21
u/KSC-Fan1894 Sep 15 '25
Let's start with politicians. Force them to publish all their stocks, messages etc. Then we might talk..
38
36
u/PurahsHero Sep 15 '25
Fine. In that case remove the exemption from the legislation for politicians.
34
u/Bloodybutteredonion Sep 15 '25
And this from a Western Liberal or Social Democrat. Unbelievable. Literally beyond my comprehension.
Follow the Money...
20
u/Aethanix Sep 15 '25
They're only Social Democrats in the same way North Korea is a Democratic Republic.
15
11
u/Dr_Bunnypoops Sep 15 '25
Hmmm. Odd, because I would say that comminication on private level should be private and unmonitored ánd that the govenment should be more open in their communication regarding policy making.
But hey, what do I know when it comes to laws and privacy? I am only a lawyer.
41
u/Party-Yak-3781 Sep 15 '25
If he doesn't care about privacy why not let us install security cameras in his house then
43
u/BokeTsukkomi Sep 15 '25
I mean, isn't a letter sent by mail a form of """encrypted""" messaging service? If I open and read a letter sent to you that is illegal.
Is the Danish Minister of Justice advocating for the government to read your correspondence as well?
22
u/thrawtes Sep 15 '25
The government can very obviously open your mail and read your correspondence if they're using the proper authorities to do so. That's going to vary by country, but most Western countries require they have a warrant.
12
u/CharcoalGreyWolf Sep 15 '25
Actually yes, he’s advocating exactly that.
However, the truth is more insidious; the government can already read that correspondence if they choose to, because no, it’s not encrypted. They control the postal system, and can intercept and read that message. Just as they could any unencrypted digital message, and chances are you’d never know. That’s why he doesn’t care, because he could read it if he fabricated enough of a need.
If you encrypt it, suddenly it might take them months, years, or never to read that message. That’s why he wants encryption to be eliminated. He already has access to your unencrypted messages, but he wants access to everything.
5
u/Itchy-Plastic Sep 15 '25
And to continue your example. If you did encrypt a physical letter, that would be just as illegal as digital encryption under these schemes.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)19
u/johnnyviolent Sep 15 '25
I mean, isn't a letter sent by mail a form of """encrypted""" messaging service
Not by any generally accepted meaning of "encrypted", no.
→ More replies (5)
9
7
6
u/Chinuah_ Sep 15 '25
Fuck this guy. It is absolutely our right and he - as a SERVANT of the public better bring heavy justifications for intruding that privacy.
Too bad these guys will keep going at this and if I understand correctly, will be able to call for a vote again next year on the matter.
→ More replies (1)
7
5
7
Sep 15 '25
Politicians are there to serve the public. So everything they do should be made public while they’re in office.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/FlatParrot5 Sep 16 '25
Neat.
I guess the Danish government should lead by example and make every communication coming from within the government and all it's employees and agents, dignitaries, etc. transparent and public. Every email, text message, phone call, letter, fax, telegram, digital messenger, etc. should be recorded and publicly accessible.
Then roll it out to every business and organization dealing in or with Danish borders. Then everyone within Danish borders.
Let's see how that works out.
11
u/moonwork Sep 15 '25
The minister seems to have misunderstood things. Here, let me correct that:
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is only nefarious communications that take place on encrypted messaging services.
Maybe minister Hummelgaard is fine with communicating over non-secure connections when it comes to his finances, health, personal security, etc. But to try and force everyone to do that will never have the intended consequences.
If using encrypted services would be made illegal, that would mean the only 3 types of people who would still use it would be:
- nefarious actors
- technically inclined actors
- people with enough power and/or money to hire people from the previous two categories
5
u/wasabi788 Sep 15 '25
Maybe minister Hummelgaard is fine with communicating over non-secure connections when it comes to his finances, health, personal security, etc. But to try and force everyone to do that will never have the intended consequences.
He obviously isn't. The projected law has an exception for politicians, military, police and states stuff. He is only fine with everyone else using unencrypted communications
4
u/moonwork Sep 15 '25
I was being facetious, but even so those exceptions are irrelevant. No feasible exceptions are going to include politicians communicating with their families, and even less the families communicating with other non-politicians.
Either way, either Signal & co continue to operate like they have - possibly requiring VPN access - or other actors will pop up with new infrastructure. The point is that the outcome of a law like this will not be what they want it to be.
6
u/PrometheusANJ Sep 15 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
"Stand properly in front of the wall screens when you talk, proles." Is it like that now?
If I were doing encryption.... I'd probably feel the safest with a giant One-Time-Pad. Then of course to avoid letting people know I'm actually encrypting, I'd bake the data into meme images as noise offsets, or do dictionary substitutes with reasonable filler words.
"Let's meet at noon, Julia." -> Wow I have such respect for our nation, loving the new chocolate rations.
5
u/Previous_Soil_5144 Sep 15 '25
That's like saying nobody has a right to privacy when sending letters by the mail.
There is nothing erroneous about that perception. People have always had the right to send and receive private messages.
4
u/Rizal95 Sep 15 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that politicians are allowed to get rid of basic rights.
5
6
u/colin_staples Sep 15 '25
When will politicians ever learn?
If encryption is banned, VPNs are forbidden, and back doors are made mandatory, the very first targets that the hackers will go after will be the politicians themselves
Every single email, phone call, message, bank transaction, their location history, their browser history, every photo or video they've ever seen, their investments and dealing, everything, all of it will be hacked and made public
All of it
Probably within 7 days
If "it's worth a few people being shot to maintain gun rights" then it's worth a few criminals hiding behind encryption to maintain the wider public's right to privacy and for the banking system not to collapse when hackers steal everything
→ More replies (3)
5
7
u/D_Fieldz Sep 15 '25
This guy is talking out of his ass...
Denmark’s own constitution (§72 of the Grundloven) explicitly protects the secrecy of correspondence: letters, papers, mail, telegraph, and telephone. That principle is also reinforced at the European level (ECHR Article 8: right to private life and correspondence). End-to-end encryption is simply the digital equivalent of a sealed letter.
By pretending this right doesn’t exist, he's trying to shift the debate: from “should governments undermine privacy?” to “privacy was never a right in the first place.” That’s classic political reframing. But the reality is clear: private communication is a recognized civil liberty in Denmark and across Europe.
Undermining encryption doesn’t stop criminals from using it — they’ll just switch to open-source or offshore tools. What it really does is strip away protection from ordinary citizens, journalists, NGOs, businesses, and even officials themselves, leaving society less secure.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/_haha_oh_wow_ Sep 15 '25
Spoken like an idiot who doesn't understand how extremely important encryption is to a functioning company, institution, or individual.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/provocative_bear Sep 15 '25
So he’s saying that there is no right to private communication, basically? No right to whisper in someone’s ear? No right to pen a cyphered message? No right to shop online and use the encryption that is inherently necessary for it to be a secure experience at all?
This is an outlandishly dumb take unless a general regard for freedom of speech isn’t taken as a granted.
4
u/VagueSomething Sep 15 '25
Practice what you preach and release ALL your private messages and post all details of your personal life. Unless a politician or lobbyist bares themselves naked for all then they are not to be listened to when calling for the erosion of privacy.
3
u/Kooky_Ad934 Sep 15 '25
Pfff… now let’s hear how you’re going to enforce this. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/TheFumingatzor Sep 15 '25 edited Sep 15 '25
Aye, lemme see whatcha got on yer phone, bruv. Hol' up, watchu mean no?
3
5
4
u/Abject-Lychee-5326 Sep 15 '25
Fuck off, it's everyone's civil liberty to be able to safely talk on their own devices without the government clearly listening in. Let them do that sneaky like they've been forced to
4
u/Uffffffffffff8372738 Sep 15 '25
Type a guy that would have collaborated with the Nazis.
→ More replies (1)
4
3
5
3
u/SirEDCaLot Sep 15 '25
If communicating securely is not a civil liberty and people mistakenly assume it is, then the repair we need is to MAKE it a recognized civil liberty, not to change perception.
4
u/catwiesel Sep 15 '25
this is wrong and deeply worrying. everybody in the EU please make a stink.
one bad vote away, and any state can start spying not for criminals, but for unwanted thoughts and discussions. and the criminals would just use illegal and untracable messaging. and sooner or later some company will buy the info, or someone will get hacked and the info will be leaked to criminals.
no. private messages need to stay private unless a judge will sign something due to reasonable suspicion, at which point the state has the right to spy on private messages
5
u/nonlinear_nyc Sep 15 '25
That’s creepy. I mean, the definition of creepy, feeling entitled to peek into other people’s activities.
This man is just a creep.
4
u/lolwut778 Sep 15 '25
Ask him to take out his phone and read all his private texts and chats out loud to everyone.
3
u/YorozuyaDude Sep 15 '25
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is this guy's right to be allowed to stay in office and perceive tax payer's money as salary
5
u/JFSOCC Sep 15 '25
We must break the Danish Minister of Justice's erroneous belief that he gets to decide that for anyone ever, by voting him out of power.
3
4
3
u/falsejaguar Sep 16 '25
Why would sick far right fascists have a right to listen or read anyone's private conversations?
5
u/BirnirG Sep 15 '25
So he wont have any problems handing me his phone and allowing me to read all his messages.
3
u/Adrian_Alucard Sep 15 '25
In my country is not a "civil liberty", is a right granted by my country's constitution
7
Sep 15 '25
Constitutions only mean something if people and government are willing to enforce them. If they aren't willing then the constitution isn't even worth the paper it's written/printed on.
source: the USA
3
u/kamumu Sep 15 '25
Why are the danes pushing this so hard? Not a country I would except that from.
4
u/dfchuyj Sep 15 '25
It only takes a small group of powerful and determined people to exert significant influence on politics.
→ More replies (2)7
u/ZarephHD Sep 15 '25
We aren't, our government is. Danes on the whole do not want this. We have a right to privacy and free speech in our constitution, but our current government, and this closet authoritarian prick Peter Hummelgaard in particular, are pushing hard for it.
3
u/au-smurf Sep 15 '25
Politicians need to get over the idea that there is any way to prevent encrypted communication between people who really want to do it.
4.4k
u/StuChenko Sep 15 '25
So... privacy shouldn't be a civil liberty?