Attached: 1 image
Danish Minister of Justice and chief architect of the current Chat Control proposal, Peter Hummelgaard:
"We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services."
Share your thoughts via https://fightchatcontrol.eu/, or to [email protected] directly.
Source: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/almdel/REU/spm/1426/index.htm
Some context, which I’m sure will be downvoted because we don’t like chat control.
The Danes currently hold the rotating presidency for the council. As such they are required to be the architects of the council position, good initiatives and bad.
The EU holds countries that are against government access to chat services and countries that believe access should be routine and warrant-free.
The Danish “architect of chat control” is thus required, by EU law, to define a compromise position and see if that can be voted through in the council.
The compromise position is a combination of “scanning at source” using both known fingerprints and AI, with a warrant based access process for police sources.
As a compromise position that’s possible passable in parliament and council.
I personally think the whole thing the entire thing is unworkable in practice. But the Danes are getting involved because they have to.
The problem is that they don’t have to prevent encryption at all…
Many governments are already recording and storing incredible amounts of your Internet traffic.
With this new legislation they want to require all companies, that offer some form of encrypted communication, to submit all the messages for scanning before they are encrypted. So they want to force Facebook and many others to actually intercept the messages before they get “end-to-end” encrypted, so they can get scanned by AI and other systems to look for CSAM.
Of course they can’t prevent encryption… Anyone can get some encryption software that doesn’t submit the messages to scanning before encrypting…
Now you as a person have the options of either using a platform that scans your messages, or finding something that actually offers privacy.
If the government then decides that they want to investigate you, then they just dig into their trove of intercepted messages. If you only used scanned services, then they can see all your messages and probably find something in them to prosecute you over. But if you used any encrypted services they don’t have access to, then they can just start prosecuting you for using encryption that they can’t spy on…
In either case you lose, and they gain the ability to practically put anyone they want behind bars.
And who knows who will wield these tools at a later point, and what they might decide should be illegal, which they can then immediately dig for in all their previously stored and scanned messages.
Yeah the criminals will quickly find ways to avoid using services that scan client side is my main issue.
I’m technical enough that I can too if the time ever comes. I’m in the “nothing criminal to hide, but fuck you you’re not seeing my texts anyway” camp.
And who knows who will wield these tools at a later point
History is so, so full of examples of this being abused by what were originally well intentioned motives (Jews in The Netherlands rounded up because of census information etc.). I just do not trust any future government and neither should anyone else.
They’ve had the rotating presidency for 2 months, Hummelgaard has been mad that police can’t see what immigrant teenagers are talking about on Whatsapp for years.
Why do people not realize how unacceptable all that shit is?
I mean imagine in the old days before email someone said that they wanted to open all mail packages and examine the contents as well as make a copy of all letters sent, personal or professional, that were sent through the mail? People would have been right outraged. Is it that because somehow posting things on a cell phone or computer makes them feel… less real?
Also every fucking time I see shit like this I am reminded of an old comic from Mad Magazine… it featured a young office boy talking to the sleazy manager. He says ‘hey, I heard you started out just like me, and now you’re practically running the whole company, can you give me some advice?’
And he responds ‘well, for starters… make sure you read EVERYONES personal letters.’
I was a young kid when I first saw it and I didn’t understand. But now I fucking do.
the word’s not useless, it’s just that its meaning has evolved to encompass pretty much all authoritarianism, rather than just a specific subset of it.
How would he like for his messages to be surveilled? The people pushing chat control conveniently leave out the detail that they decided to exempt themselves from this measure.
apparently nominally a member of a social-democratic party
When I was younger, I believed that social-democratic parties were better than conservative ones on matters of civil liberties. I stand corrected on that.
The capitalist counties have proven that surveillance and censorship is more effective when you make it so subtle that a majority of their citizens are unaware that it’s happening.
This is why it’s so important to vote based on policy, not party names or “teams”. Parties can name themselves whatever they want (within reason) and they evolve and change as well. Canada right now is a good example. The current Liberal party is basically the Conservative party of the 90s. Just look at policy and leave the brand out of it.
Never forget, North Korea calls itself The Democratic Republic of North Korea. The Nazis were called The National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Words have meaning, even when they don’t.
As a dane: The social democratic party in Denmark has changed a lot in the last 10-20 years. It used to be much more left-leaning. Nowadays it’s essentially a middle party. They adopted quite a few policies from the right wing (especially on the immigration area), in an attempt to keep the power basically, and it has worked immensely well, in the sense that many, many people have voted for them.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Some context, which I’m sure will be downvoted because we don’t like chat control.
The Danes currently hold the rotating presidency for the council. As such they are required to be the architects of the council position, good initiatives and bad.
The EU holds countries that are against government access to chat services and countries that believe access should be routine and warrant-free.
The Danish “architect of chat control” is thus required, by EU law, to define a compromise position and see if that can be voted through in the council.
The compromise position is a combination of “scanning at source” using both known fingerprints and AI, with a warrant based access process for police sources.
As a compromise position that’s possible passable in parliament and council.
I personally think the whole thing the entire thing is unworkable in practice. But the Danes are getting involved because they have to.
He doesn’t have to go to the press with authoritarian statements defending chat control. This is what he said:
“We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone’s civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services.”
This is Putin-style authoritarianism coming from Peter Hummelgaard.
Yeah what’s next, microphones that listen to everything we say?
East Berlin and the STASI remembers.
How in the name of fuck anyone thinks they can prevent encryption is beyond me. That ship sailed 30 years ago. People who want it will find a way.
The problem is that they don’t have to prevent encryption at all…
Many governments are already recording and storing incredible amounts of your Internet traffic.
With this new legislation they want to require all companies, that offer some form of encrypted communication, to submit all the messages for scanning before they are encrypted. So they want to force Facebook and many others to actually intercept the messages before they get “end-to-end” encrypted, so they can get scanned by AI and other systems to look for CSAM.
Of course they can’t prevent encryption… Anyone can get some encryption software that doesn’t submit the messages to scanning before encrypting…
Now you as a person have the options of either using a platform that scans your messages, or finding something that actually offers privacy.
If the government then decides that they want to investigate you, then they just dig into their trove of intercepted messages. If you only used scanned services, then they can see all your messages and probably find something in them to prosecute you over. But if you used any encrypted services they don’t have access to, then they can just start prosecuting you for using encryption that they can’t spy on…
In either case you lose, and they gain the ability to practically put anyone they want behind bars.
And who knows who will wield these tools at a later point, and what they might decide should be illegal, which they can then immediately dig for in all their previously stored and scanned messages.
Yeah the criminals will quickly find ways to avoid using services that scan client side is my main issue.
I’m technical enough that I can too if the time ever comes. I’m in the “nothing criminal to hide, but fuck you you’re not seeing my texts anyway” camp.
History is so, so full of examples of this being abused by what were originally well intentioned motives (Jews in The Netherlands rounded up because of census information etc.). I just do not trust any future government and neither should anyone else.
They’ve had the rotating presidency for 2 months, Hummelgaard has been mad that police can’t see what immigrant teenagers are talking about on Whatsapp for years.
I miss the times when fascists were beaten with rocks.
Those are too quick
“you can’t savor all the … Little emotions” - The Dark Knight
It’s literal fucking TrollTrace from South Park…
Why do people not realize how unacceptable all that shit is?
I mean imagine in the old days before email someone said that they wanted to open all mail packages and examine the contents as well as make a copy of all letters sent, personal or professional, that were sent through the mail? People would have been right outraged. Is it that because somehow posting things on a cell phone or computer makes them feel… less real?
Also every fucking time I see shit like this I am reminded of an old comic from Mad Magazine… it featured a young office boy talking to the sleazy manager. He says ‘hey, I heard you started out just like me, and now you’re practically running the whole company, can you give me some advice?’
And he responds ‘well, for starters… make sure you read EVERYONES personal letters.’
I was a young kid when I first saw it and I didn’t understand. But now I fucking do.
Going through someone else’s mail upset people so much, they made it a felony. 😮
He may be an asshole, but calling everyone you don’t like a fascist is just going to make the word useless
He may be a fascist, but calling everyone you don’t like an asshole is just going to make the word useless
Fascist is as fascist does
There you go, I’m Italian so my definition of fascism is Umberto Eco’s, seems like this guy falls short a bit, we can use other words.
the word’s not useless, it’s just that its meaning has evolved to encompass pretty much all authoritarianism, rather than just a specific subset of it.
Yeah, and we have the word authoritarianism for that
Unfortunately people here are mostly incapable of having nuance.
Oh, the irony!
How would he like for his messages to be surveilled? The people pushing chat control conveniently leave out the detail that they decided to exempt themselves from this measure.
"What’s with Denmark going MAGA-level? Here we go!”
Site doesn’t load
If he ever needs a new job, the NSA will be happy to hire him.
Hummel means bumblebee
deleted by creator
Just to be safe I want everyone to know that if this guy gets shot I would be reaally sad.
deleted by creator
I’m sure there is somebody out there who thinks this guy is not fascist enough! This is all so absurd.
apparently nominally a member of a social-democratic party
When I was younger, I believed that social-democratic parties were better than conservative ones on matters of civil liberties. I stand corrected on that.
SocDem is still capitalist. Capitalist politicians answer to capital.
Yep. If you want to escape from surveillance and censorship, you’ve got to go to a communist country.
You forgot the /s
I guess, some people are deluded with communism.
Where would that be?
I was being sarcastic.
The capitalist counties have proven that surveillance and censorship is more effective when you make it so subtle that a majority of their citizens are unaware that it’s happening.
Just because the guy is a fucktard, doesnt mean the party is. And the other way around.
Politics is not a “team sport” and we should not treat it like that.
Parties choose whom to nominate as ministers.
I’m not a voter in Denmark and not familiar with Danish politics; this kind of thing would certainly cause me to vote for a different party.
Yeah, I think I swayed too much into a general critic of a way of thinking about politics.
I still agree with you, when it’s a minister.
It’s also worth to note that his party, even though their name, is a middle party now and no longer left.
There are plenty of parties better for the people than them right now.
This is why it’s so important to vote based on policy, not party names or “teams”. Parties can name themselves whatever they want (within reason) and they evolve and change as well. Canada right now is a good example. The current Liberal party is basically the Conservative party of the 90s. Just look at policy and leave the brand out of it.
Never forget, North Korea calls itself The Democratic Republic of North Korea. The Nazis were called The National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Words have meaning, even when they don’t.
It’s more like people in power don’t like civil liberties.
Social democracy is the left wing of fascism
What a stupid take.
Historically and presently 100% accurate, cope
As a dane: The social democratic party in Denmark has changed a lot in the last 10-20 years. It used to be much more left-leaning. Nowadays it’s essentially a middle party. They adopted quite a few policies from the right wing (especially on the immigration area), in an attempt to keep the power basically, and it has worked immensely well, in the sense that many, many people have voted for them.
Hi fascist! I’m guillotine!
mrrrrreow meow :3
What if I go into politics and start mrrreow meow :3 in EU parliament?
A vtuber catfolk politician? Might as well try it.
Yay meow meow