cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37443248
Answer
Question no. 1425 (General part) from the Danish Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee:
“Will the minister elaborate on the minister’s statement to TV2 on the 21st?”
August 2024, where the minister says: "We have to break with the totally mistaken notion that it is every man’s freedom to communicate on encrypted messaging services
(…)”?”
Answer:
We know that social media and encrypted services are unfortunately largely is used to facilitate many forms of crime. There are examples on how criminal gangs recruit completely through encrypted platforms young people to commit, among other things, serious crimes against persons. It is an expression of a cynicism that is almost completely incomprehensible.
We therefore need to look at how we can overcome this problem. Both in terms of what the services themselves do, but also what we from the authorities can do. It must not be the case that the criminals can hide behind encrypted services that authorities cannot access access to.
Therefore, we, as a government, will also strengthen the police’s capabilities in the area of decryption, of course under appropriate legal guarantees, as is also the case today. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has The Criminal Justice Committee has just started working on a terms of reference that will look at the challenges that technological developments present to the police investigation, including the use of encrypted messaging services.
I also note that steps have been taken within the EU towards a strengthened regulation of, among other things, digital information services and social media platforms.
For example, the European Commission has proposed a new Regulation on rules for preventing and combating sexual abuse of children. The proposed regulation contains rules on obligations for certain online services to minimize the risk of their services being misused for online child sexual abuse, and the services can, if necessary, be required to track down, report, remove and block access to material showing sexual abuse of children.
So with all this bullshit coming from some great “democratically elected leaders”, can i just sign up with some random ass party and say i need encryption because i am a politician?:>
Around 2010, I was using Pidgin to communicate with friends, a universal client to connect to instant messaging platforms. At the time, this would have been MSN, ICQ, AOL messenger, Skype, etc. Even facebook was running its own XMPP server that you could connect to, and communicate with your facebook friends! Pre-enshittification-times were really amazing.
In this pre-Snowden era, end-to-end encryption was pretty much unheard of, TLS was used for “serious stuff” like online banking. Still, Pidgin had a plugin implementing OTR messaging, which is essentially an ancestor of the Signal protocol. It worked by sending the encrypted messages as plain text messages over any supported service. Me and my friend (who, I believe, was using a different non-Pidgin MacOS client?) would talk to each other using OTR-encrypted messages via Facebook Messenger. Key verification was not a solved issue and had to be done manually using a different channel. And when you opened Facebook itself to look at your messages, all you could see was a bunch of base64(?)-encoded gibberish. Fun times.
The only way to outlaw encryption is to outlaw mathematics. If two (or more) persons want to exchange messages securely, they can and will always be able to do so. If I cannot trust my messaging application, I will find a way that I do not have to trust it, and people that have something to hide even more so. Encryption is not a loophole for criminals; it is a bulwark against tyranny. This proposal will solve no problems, but establish a authoritarian surveillance state.
We need to do away with the erroneous perception that there is a safe way to break encryption only for the government. That actually IS an erroneous perception
Breaking encryption would be an unmitigated disaster, Peter Hummelgaard either doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about or is completely insane.
Danes, if you re-elect this man, you are condoning this outrageous position.
What is actually going on with denmark? What is their problem with privacy? Have they always been like that?
It’s happening all over Europe and the US, but especially Europe. Police were used to being able to eavesdrop on any sort of communication. This becomes ever less possible, while at the same time, you have more and more crimes that are committed solely by communicating and can’t be prosecuted or even detected without massive internet surveillance. I think the US commitment to “free speech”, freedom of information, has a somewhat protective effect.
Of course, these online-only crimes are 99%+ copyright, but even copyright has gained in favor among netizens. Then you have “deep fakes”. Bunch of other stuff like holocaust denial. Going after such stuff is quite popular among lemmings, too. And how else are you going to enforce all that?
I don’t know about Denmark, but e.g. in Sweden tax declarations are considered public information. In many areas in the Netherlands, you are able to view the complete ground floor of houses from the street. The idea of privacy differs between cultures.
Nonetheless, I’m convinced every minister of justice would state the same, even in the most privacy fokussed countries.
Not only tax declarations, but a lot of public info on car ownerships, court cases, personal address, and so on. “Doxxing” is not really a thing, in the same sense, here. But there used to be somethings that were completely off limits, like contents of postal mail. That used to be considered very much a private thing. Until recently.
Nonetheless, I’m convinced every minister of justice would state the same
You are right. But that only shows how hard they are trying to destroy democracy now as the EU and many countries’ constitutions consider privacy and the ability to confidentally communicate privately a basic human right.
References:
EU convention on Human Rights: “The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private life, the home and correspondence. This includes protecting the privacy of messages, phone calls, and emails. Governments can only interfere with these rights when it is specifically allowed by law, and done for a good reason – like national security or public safety.”
Danish constitution: “§ 72 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.”
All those morons could at least openly talk about the fact that they want to change basic constitutional rights. But they don’t as people could realize what they are doing then. So it’s always the same bullshit of bending and bending laws until they break (or courts object), then pretend to be totally surprised, turn around and try the exact same shit again.
andway itway isway osay easypay otay egislatelay awayway.
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that ostensibly democratic governments can be trusted.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Wise words, even tarnished by their descendants.
It’s taken only about 35 years for the “free” countries of Europe to adopt the same mindset that the Eastern Bloc used to have. In large parts of Germany, for example, people can still remember how it was when you could expect your government to listen in on any and every private conversation. It wasn’t good.
No, it was god. You must be misremembering in your old age :P
It wasn’t good.
At least everyone was well fed and clothed
Goddammit, I thought you were being sarcastic before I saw your replies
Afraid not: The USSR had all sorts of food supply issues and even intentionally starved people.
how many people have you talked to from soviet states? because food insecurity was a serious problem in the highly stratified authoritarian eastern bloc. yes, capitalism kills, but if you understand capitalism to be a system of controlling the workers by having a small cabal owning everything you start to realize the eastern bloc was capitalist as hell
You could even buy a car if you were prepared to wait 10 years for it.
Either you forgot 8 years, or the party owes you a favour.
You could also get a landline real fast if they had a vested interest in bugging your home.
Car? Why do you need a car if you can easily get everywhere by a tram
Yes, the famous communist trams in the villages and smaller cities. Somehow my parents and grandparents never told me about those, but had enough stories about how people waited for cars.
Now without sarcasm: public transport was something that was heavily invested in in many socialist countries, yes. And that was a good thing. But that doesn’t change that a lot of people still wanted to have a car to get outside the cities or be more independent from PT and it’s time tables in general.
Why would you need to go somewhere outside of the timetables of public transport, all work, government and party events are planned around those. If you leave your home at other times you must have bad intentions!
The only thing that never ran out was Vodka and Korn. Folks had to wait in line for anything and everything. What a great time it was.
Alas! Now we only need to wait for salary
After all, that is a privilege reserved for politicians.
I feel like this man has some mighty nasty skeletons in his closet if he was openly advocating for “rules for thee but not for me”
“And also at the same time compromise the security of every computing system in the country, lay the foundation for massive abuse of power and murder the concept of privacy. It’s all for their own good.”
August 2024, where the minister says: "We have to break with the totally mistaken notion that it is every man’s freedom to communicate on encrypted messaging services
Are you going to prevent people from using e2e encryption systems that run atop existing non-encrypted systems?
You bet they will. Right now its impractical, because a lot of people of it, but after laws like chat control pass it’ll be easier to make encryption illegal altogether because a lot fewer people will go through the hurdles. Only criminals and deviants will use encryption. And you’re no deviant, are you citizen?
They say they want to target the criminals, but even if made illegal, those would be the ones to use encryption manually over unsecure channels anyway. Arriving at the same problem as before, only having shafted the general public.
Does Denmark not have a secret of correspondence/letters kind of constitutional right?
Our constitutional rights ensure that the police must have a good reason to investigate our correspondence. I suppose the issue with well-encrypted messaging for the state is that even with a good reason, the police can’t read the correspondence.
Not that I support this nonsense, just saying.
We do and it’s part of our constitution (same situation as Germany about not being updated). Not that any of the recent governments have cared about this minor detail.
We only recently got rid of another law, which required logging of calls and texts by telecommunications.
This only ended because the EU courts ruled it was against the right to privacy, and it still took them 8 years to drag their feet following the ruling to abolish the law.
Various government from both sides of the political spectrum have slowly introduced, or paved the way for, more mass surveillance, but the current government has been extremely vocal about surveillance.
Edit: penal code says “sealed” messages are off limits. Not that they care 🙄
We (Germany) do, but it has never been updated to include electronic communication.
That’s actually wrong. Art. 10 (1) GG protects the secret of the letter, secret of postal service and the secret of telecommunication (Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis).
Doesn’t need to be updated, electronic communication was included in the very first draft in 1948.
If it hadn’t already been established long ago, vile creeps like Peter Hummelgaard would lobby against postal privacy, too.
would lobby against postal privacy
No, they wouldn’t because then the stupid masses might wake up and realize how their rights are stripped away. Instead they always pretend that existing constitutional and other laws would not actually protect communication.
