Administered by:
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 jm@jm.dk directly.
Source: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/almdel/REU/spm/1426/index.htm
@chatcontrol We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is technically feasible to outlaw encryption.
@ondra @chatcontrol Those guys are running absolutely into craziness.
The surveillance state didn't win in the past, and they won't win now.
@ondra @chatcontrol they're not outlawing encryption. Chat Control is to be implemented BEFORE encryption (or after decryption) 
@stooovie @chatcontrol They'd essentially have to in the end, though. There's a ton of encrypted communication tools already out there, including their source code. Mandating "chat control" would mean that anything that allows end-to-end encrypted communication between people would become illegal. What about the non-EU versions that won't comply? S/MIME or PGP encrypted mail? Etc. It all has to be banned as well, right?
As @qbe just wrote: https://chaos.social/@qbe/115208564779298861
@ondra @chatcontrol @qbe the govs can put so much pressure though that services we can actually get people to use (Signal is at the nerdy end of that spectrum) will a) buckle down b) leave EU. So essentially this debate is pointless. I'm sure there will still be secure protocols without the intrusion of CC, but good luck getting people to use them
@stooovie @ondra @chatcontrol granted, the EU can force companies operating within EU to comply. But that just means that specifically the "criminal communication" which CC were supposed to catch, would immediately move to the dozens of already existing open-source E2E messaging solutions.
So CC would only work in the way that they specifically claim it wouldn't; to create a broad surveillance machine.
For anything else, they would have to take away our general computation, which they can't.
@qbe @ondra @chatcontrol I agree, yes. My point is NOT that Chat Control is no big deal, on the contrary. It's a huge fkn deal, and burying heads in the sand with "no worries, there will always be means to securely communicate" is missing the point
@stooovie @qbe @chatcontrol Oh if that's how you understood my comment, then that's definitely not the message I wanted to convey. I'd love them to finally give up these futile attempts. I'm not taking it lightly and had written to my representatives to oppose this.
@ondra @qbe @chatcontrol thank you for that yeah. Maybe I misunderstood. I get that sentiment ("there will always be SnikkitySnak running on Tails OS, so no big deal") a lot on here.
@stooovie @ondra @chatcontrol yeah, my point is not a "well, I will always have secure communication so I am disinterested in this discussion". My point is that this entire endeavor is foolish and should be mocked and exposed as stupid and ineffectual, if not plain evil.
@stooovie @qbe @ondra In addition, It's not just encryption we are fighting against. Also mandated Age verification in apps, ALL apps and websites. Even if they don't even get contact with people, those can get blocked. I do not want to send my credit card to watch cat videos on Instagram to a random company. Anonymity is over too if it passes - a right to privacy. And needless to say people will loose access to apps under the age. Like 16 to whatssap, messager and all chatting apps like that.
+
@stooovie @qbe @ondra Patrick even spoke about Minecraft ! MINECRAFT! One thing you could argue is roblox and even then I don't agree with full on age verification on EVERYTHING (besides the ones under the age of 13, 13 year Olds won't be able to access app store to those apps. The same for 16 year Olds for 16 year Olds. Imagine a 16 year old not be able to use the school whatssap group.. or the family group..)
@ondra @chatcontrol That is my first question in chat control topic. How on earth would they enforce it ? 
@ati1 @ondra @chatcontrol the same way they put the kibosh on piracy
@ati1 @ondra @chatcontrol they can't. They would have to basically outlaw non-approved apps to be installed or used on any computer in Europe. Cory Doctorow has talked about this multiple times; authoritarians and Capitalists would love to put the Turing machine back into the proverbial bottle β¦ but it doesn't work like that. You cannot exclude a Turing machine from doing "a specific thing". You cannot subtract features from a Turing machine, because it has only one feature: turing-completedness
@qbe @ati1 @ondra @chatcontrol
if you look at the age verification app proposal from the EU, they are pretty much enforcing it in a way that you can only use the EU age verification apps if your phone passes Android integrity tests, which Google is changing in the next version to require developer verification for sideloading apps to your phone (i.e., only verified developers can create an app that can be sideloaded)
@qbe @ati1 @ondra @chatcontrol
meaning, if you have lots of sideloaded apps through F-Droid, your phone would probably fail integrity tests, which would not allow you to use the age verification app, locking you out of the service you want to access...
@xinayder @qbe @ondra @chatcontrol So you're basically saying EU would force everybody to use either Google Android or iOS? No web browser access? Laptops/desktops? Like you have to verify you login credentials / age once? Say on a desktop? Or each and every time on any platform? Well that would be pretty stupid of EU. But luckily I think you may just be projecting your worst fears, worst case scenario that won't materialise. So heads up 
@ati1 @xinayder @ondra @chatcontrol I am not projecting my worst Fears, I am just pointing out that ANY implementation of this bullshit will either
* be so ineffective that moderately smart criminals can subvert it relatively easily
OR
* be so disruptive that it will require the police randomly coming to your house to have a look at your computer, or general computing being taken away from users, etc., which would destroy large parts of the IT industry.
There is no way around this. Its math.
@ati1 @xinayder @ondra @chatcontrol the hard part is making that clear to laypersons, the general populace, and politicians.
No-one should debate anyone on chat control without having thought about how to communicate this effectively.
You cannot prove that a computer is NOT doing a specific thing (halting Problem)
Trying to make a computer that can do everything _except_ illegal things is like trying to invent a wheel that can't be used in bank robbery get away - it doesn't work.
@qbe @xinayder @ondra @chatcontrol I was refering to your toot where you wrote that EU os gonna make age verification app that only works with Google Play Services / integrity tests and you would not be able to log into web services without that.
@ati1 @qbe @ondra @chatcontrol I don't know to which extent the EU will require the use of its age verification app/national implementations, but seeing how they have a dream of a techno-fascist surveillance state, I'd dare to say your assumptions are more likely to be correct.
this is all speculation, though.
@chatcontrol The defence against stupidity like this is:
"You first."
Peter should feel free to post the contents of his eMail inbox, text messages, his phone's camera roll, or recordings of his phonecalls for everyone else to snoop on.
Until then, he should STFU.
But he won't, because he's exempted from surveillance -- his privacy remains intact.
Machina This is genuinely crazy from them
@chatcontrol Yeah, encryption is so harmful for children. Let's ban https and ssl/tls too for a much safer world.
@chatcontrol excuse me, sir, but yes i do have that right. I am not a convicted and incarcerated criminal receiving mail that is being read by jailers.
@chatcontrol what an idiot.
@chatcontrol We must break with the totally erroneous perception that some dickhead in a suit gets to decide what is and isnβt my civil liberty. Want to stop me from doing the funny math? Try.
@chatcontrol Meanwhile his party colleague (and former government minister) Henrik Sass Larsen was just sentenced to prison for possessing CSAM. But at least politicians are exempt, right?
@chatcontrol this mf joking right?
@chatcontrol of course he would say that. Being a politician, he excepted himself!
@chatcontrol We're right back to "outlawing numbers"
@chatcontrol We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is politicians liberty to say stupid shit about how people should communicate.
@chatcontrol If you ever, even for a microsecond, thought they are doing it "for the children", here's your answer from the guy himself!
@chatcontrol the problem with what #Hummelgraat said, is that on the #internet you either have #encryption based #privacy or you dont have privacy at all. It's like β and I wasnt around then β in the '90s and '00s, with the dot-combubble, or at least, that's what I was told. (I'm from '01)
@feike @chatcontrol I am positively ancient. 
Anyway, the dot com bubble is quite unrelated to this.
Sure, this fight started around then (anyone remember the clipper chip?) but that's just because that's when Internet communication really started to take off among regular people.
Before then, people didn't really think much about encryption outside of basic stuff like authentication.
@loke @feike @chatcontrol The fight was already ongoing in the 90s with Phil Zimmermannβs PGP and the criminal investigations against him, as well as export controls of strong cryptography and the consideration of backdoors in encryption products.
Iβm so tired of this. It comes up every few years and not in a single case there was any ethical reason for the attack on cryptography.
@chatcontrol bro didn't read the fundamental rights we are given as EU citizens
@marcosti_04 @chatcontrol bro knows the law, but bro cares not
@chatcontrol What the fuck is wrong with this guy?
@chatcontrol Privacy is a fundamental human right. Breaking encryption destroys civil liberties for any nation.
@chatcontrol Fuck this guy 
It is a BASIS of civil liberties that we have privacy and right to nonmonitored communication.
@chatcontrol Hardly surprising that this comes from the Social Democrats. His predecessor as Minister of Justice once defended expanded surveillance in public spaces with the Orwellian claim that βwith surveillance, freedom increasesβ because surveillance supposedly creates safety, and safety somehow equals freedom. Surveillance as freedom: pure doublespeak.
@chatcontrol ahem,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers Article 14, UN
Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
+ Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Free Expression and Access to Information, Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality.
The Right to Privacy
in Denmark Submitted by Privacy International and IT-Political
Association of Denmark. (Pdf)
@chatcontrol
"We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to put curtains on their windows."
@chatcontrol
"We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate in a secure way."
"And our highways should be made dangerous to drive, so that criminals cannot use them to escape."
Fucking idiot.
@chatcontrol @w00p That's a really good analogy between encryption and highways. The Internet, and the privacy that we have come to expect from it, is public infrastructure. We don't dismantle infrastructure because criminals use it*.
*Border controls ruining my generalization...
@chatcontrol danish government smoking some techno-fascist crack because fym people aren't allowed to talk to each other in private?? literally the plot of 1984 bruh 
@chatcontrol Fellas, is it erroneous to want PRIVACY? And must I remind you, oh so grand danish minister of justice and chief architect of the current Chat control proposal, Peter Hummelgaard, that PRIVACY is a human right?
This is laughable at worst. In some days, racism will also be debatable, it seems. What the fuck is going on.
@Null03 @chatcontrol like, maybe some dad calles with his docter to send pictures of his daughter's genitals β cause she's ill and the docter asks for those pictures in the midsts of the pendemic, which is why she cant go get see the docter β, but Google interseps those emages and thinks it's childabusematerial! (Really happened to someone, Google deleted the father's account, with everything on it)
That's to say, privacy mathers!
@feike @chatcontrol but that's not a matter of 'just' privacy, that's a matter of context too. In the same way, two consensual adults could have nudes of eachother and some maniac could say that they both have it for revenge p0rn. And considering that these two are consenting adults, in their case, privacy is absolutely everything. Because, as I've said, it's within two consenting adults. I do not care what they do with their freedom as long as it's consensual and not hurting anyone.
@Null03 @chatcontrol argree, and, in addition, why is there a taboo on sex, fucking and porn in the first place! The real issues are abuse, rape, sexual blackmail, herasment if not sexual, sexual powerabuse etc. Etc etc....
@feike @chatcontrol Because they want adults to still have the 'oh, an ankle!' Mindset. I'm fine with children not having direct contact with any of it yet. I'm also fine in teaching and educating everyone on all of these matters within age appropriate approach. It helps children against abuse. Otherwise, you'll still have young girls not knowing what a 'period' is and panicking.