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…
Read the original article
Comments
Here at the computer science department in Aarhus, some of our professors and our head of department are doing their best to try to talk some sense into our politicians. See this post (apologies for linking to linkedin): https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cs-au-dk_dkpol-eupol-krypteri...
Diego has been part of putting together this open letter from 500+ cryptography and cybersecurity researchers: https://csa-scientist-open-letter.org/Sep2025
By kaliszad 2025-09-1518:25 This is very laudable!
The letter's first page looks very low effort, which unfortunately is the first impression undermining the certainly large amounts of work people have invested in this. The note about needing a PhD could well be left to the form instead of sounding extremely elitist right on the first page. Yes, it's shallow and everything but do you want to be right or get your way?
This "it's only right that we, the humble and fair politicians, are exempt from this forceful control we're exerting over everyone" aspect of ChatControl is beyond ridiculous.
I'm not usually of a "revolutionist" kind in the slightest, but, when you combine this small example to a lot of things currently happening across Europe and the US - it does increasingly seem like people in power are less and less wary of heavy and serious responsibility their positions hold to the people, and are more and more brazen when it comes to trying to isolate themselves from scrutiny over their self-profiting endeavours.
Historically, there were somewhat regular "correction" events happening somewhere sufficiently close, that made sure that responsibility is stuck in politician's minds for longer into the future, but it's been a long time since.
Edit: My comment is partially fueled by everything that's currently happening in Serbia (grand-scale systemic corruption), but I do think you can see similar movement in much more orderly countries in Europe as well, and all this is unconnected to ChatControl, but I see it as a small ripple from the same source.
I also dare say that current state of affairs in US has emboldened such people everywhere.
Nepal is probably not felt as close enough to have an effect.
By daemin 2025-09-1516:01 My response: "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that politicians' communications are private."
By raxxorraxor 2025-09-166:54 I think Bill Maher did a good summary about Europe getting worse in every perceivable way on civil liberties.
And people wonder why young people leave the old continent. Surely not only because of this, but the political class in Europe is more and more dysfunctional.
Ran across this interesting NYT article from 1908. After President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, Teddy Roosevelt demanded action against anarchist publications being sent through the postal service. And yet he clarifies this does not apply to normal mail - "sealed documents" - explaining the government is "expressly forbidden to ascertain, what the purport of such messages may be":
The greater portion of his opinion is devoted to the question of whether, in the absence of any legislation by Congress, the Postmaster General has the right to exclude such publications. On this point his conclusion is: "The Postmaster General will be justified in excluding from the mails any issue of any periodical, otherwise entitled to the privilege of second-class mail matter, which shall contain any article constituting seditious libel, and counseling such crimes as murder, arson, riot, and treason." The Attorney General makes a clear distinction with reference to the authority of postal officials over sealed and unsealed mail matter. In conveying letters and newspapers to persons to whom they are directed, he says the United States "undertakes the business of a messenger." He adds: "In so far as it conveys sealed documents, its agents not only are not bound to know, but are expressly forbidden to ascertain, what the purport of such messages may be; therefore, neither the Government nor its officers can be held either legally or morally responsible for the nature of the letters to which they thus, in intentional ignorance, afford transportation."
https://www.nytimes.com/1908/04/10/archives/roosevelt-demand...
Fast forward to today, and we're somehow arguing that end-to-end encrypted messages (our modern sealed letters) should be scan-able "just in case."
By red-iron-pine 2025-09-1613:29 and, presumably, stored, for lengths unknown
The purported difference now is that governments don't want to actually look that them... they just want to install a machine (that they control) that looks at all of them.
Completely different. /s
By spwa4 2025-09-1517:14 Don't forget:
1) they have per-emptively excluded themselves, and ALL state security agencies. There will be no checking up on politician's messages. There will be no checking up on police communications. No checking up on secret service messages (not even for the many public activities of such services). There will be no double-checking what the IRS tells it's agents. There will be no checking on school teachers.
In other words: clearly these politicians see the value in hiding what they themselves do, and in hiding anything that might result in liability. There is no need to explain this to them.
Rather, the question to ask them is what they are asking us: "Why aren't YOU breaking with the 'totally erroneous perception' that you, a public servant, can't be checked upon?"
2) This even applies to WHAT will phones be scanned for. The politicians see no need to have public discussion of what they'll be searching for. Since they are obviously carefully choosing what to hide and what to show, the question should be framed correctly:
"Why won't you tell us what you're scanning people's phones for?"
"Also, give me your phone, I've got some things I want to check it for ... What exactly? Why do you expect ME to tell YOU that?"
3) Why they are letting foreign companies do the phone scanning? I mean you're going to let the security services scan phones to help secure the state ... and you're getting a FOREIGN company to do this? Again the question should be framed correctly:
"Can you show me what grades you received in kindergarten? Did you ever get your head stuck in a chair for 9 days in a row?"
Tangent inbound: your comment is a great example of my rule that whenever you read or hear the word "just", you should think hard about what that means. My wife told me to "just build a retaining wall." That word, "just" does a lot of work in our society.
By ethbr1 2025-09-1516:58 Can't spell "justice for the children" without just!
By pvillano 2025-09-1517:18 Same with "should". I feel like most "should" statements aren't helpful. Something should be done a certain way, but in the end, society should be perfect and we shouldn't have this problem in the first place!
By cindyllm 2025-09-1516:18 [dead]
By jauntywundrkind 2025-09-1521:491 reply Unfortunately the postscript to liberty being writ clear like this is quite dark. Merely a decadeatter Albert Sidney Burleson became postmaster general.
> "Has been called the worst postmaster general in American history, but that is unfair; he introduced parcel post and airmail and improved rural service. It is fair to say however that he may have been the worst human being ever to serve as postmaster general -G. J. Meyer
This guy shows up time and time again in Hochshild's amazing American Midnight, to keep careful watch over & to ban various inconvenient political, civil, labor, racial, and anti-war folks from being able to send their letters. Empowered via the 1917 Espionage Act, by a Congress where many members quite loudly vociferously argued for it for letting the government shut down the left's ability to express problems of the world and a desire for a better world. Then as now (at least at POTUS level), to wish for a better state was perceived by the right as hating America, as a form of treason, as propaganda.
Burleson solicited post offices everywhere to send him anything suspicious. He also was a frequent at Wilson's Whitehouse, and would distribute postmaster positions in return for voting certain ways on bills. But in general, banning publications is the main of his legacy as a rotten evil fucker. He banned 15 publications in the first month after passage of the Espionage Act, largely for anti-war sentiment, and sent a huge huge huge chill through what journalism was permitted.
The foes of democracy are legion and oh have mercy, the snowflakes are back in power again. At war with and trying to run out of business a press that reports after them.
Apologies for my shitty post. I'm not worthy. Please please please read American Midnight. It's insane what this country was up to 100 years ago, how lopsided & vulgarly self-dealing & unjust the power was arrayed against the left & speech & progress & peace. Hopefully this trip around to the darker side of mankind is much shorter and much less a cooption of the state for political and economic exploitation.
By red-iron-pine 2025-09-1613:31 dejoy is likely to usurp that title. or maybe not, if history is written by the victors and the trumpists annihilate truthful record keeping -- and they're sure trying
