3 ms·

> Denmark's constitution does have a privacy paragraph, but it explicitly mentions telephone and telegraph That's very much not how danish law works. The speci

> Denmark's constitution does have a privacy paragraph, but it explicitly mentions telephone and telegraph That's very much not how danish law works. The specific paragraph says "hvor ingen lov hjemler en særegen undtaglse, alene ske efter en retskendelse." translated as "where no other law grants a special exemption, only happen with a warrant". That is, you can open peoples private mail and enter their private residence, but you have to ask a judge first.

Telaneo 1y ago
And yet they wanted to push a proposal where the government would have free access to all digital communication, no judge required. So if it happens through a telephone conversation, you need a judge, while with a digital message, you wouldn't have, since the government would have already collected that information through Chat Control.
- delusional 1y ago
  I don't know where you get your information, but that was not in the chat control proposal I read.
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communications. And: > The confidentiality of private electronic correspondence is being sacrificed. Users of messenger, chat and e-mail services risk having their private messages read and analyzed. Sensitive photos and text content could be forwarded to unknown entities worldwide and can fall into the wrong hands. [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
    - delusional 1y ago
      > All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
      - tiagod 1y ago
        Didn't the proposal involve automated scanning of all instant messages? How isn't that equivalent of having an automated system opening every letter and listening to every phone call looking for crimes?
        delusional 1y ago
        Not from what I can tell. From what I can read, it only establishes a new authority, under the supervision and at the digression, of the Member state that can, with judicial approval mandate "the least intrusive in terms of the impact on the users’ rights to private and family life" detection activities on platforms where "there is evidence [... ] it is likely, [...] that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material". That all sounds extremely boring and political, but the essence is that it mandates a local authority to scan messages on platforms that are likely to contain child pornography. That's not a blanket scan of all messages everywhere.
        iamnothere 1y ago
        > platforms that are likely to contain child pornography So every platform, everywhere? Facebook and Twitter/X still have problems keeping up with this, Matrix constantly has to block rooms from the public directory, Mastodon mods have plenty of horror stories. Any platform with UGC will face this issue, but it’s not a good reason to compromise E2EE or mandate intrusive scanning of private messages. I would not be so opposed to mandated scans of public posts on large platforms, as image floods are still a somewhat common form of harassment (though not as common as it once was).
- tokai 1y ago
  The ombudsman will say some strong words and everything will continue as is.
mrweasel 1y ago
People continue to believe that the "Grundlov" works like the US constitution, and it's really nothing like that. If anything it's more of a transfer of legislation from the king to parliament. Most laws just leaves the details to be determined by parliament. Censorship really is one of the few laws that are pretty unambiguous, that's really just "No, never again". Not that this stops politicians, but that's a separate debate.

Telaneo 1y ago

And yet they wanted to push a proposal where the government would have free access to all digital communication, no judge required. So if it happens through a telephone conversation, you need a judge, while with a digital message, you wouldn't have, since the government would have already collected that information through Chat Control.

delusional 1y ago
I don't know where you get your information, but that was not in the chat control proposal I read.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communications. And: > The confidentiality of private electronic correspondence is being sacrificed. Users of messenger, chat and e-mail services risk having their private messages read and analyzed. Sensitive photos and text content could be forwarded to unknown entities worldwide and can fall into the wrong hands. [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
  - delusional 1y ago
    > All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
    - tiagod 1y ago
      Didn't the proposal involve automated scanning of all instant messages? How isn't that equivalent of having an automated system opening every letter and listening to every phone call looking for crimes?
      - delusional 1y ago
        Not from what I can tell. From what I can read, it only establishes a new authority, under the supervision and at the digression, of the Member state that can, with judicial approval mandate "the least intrusive in terms of the impact on the users’ rights to private and family life" detection activities on platforms where "there is evidence [... ] it is likely, [...] that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material". That all sounds extremely boring and political, but the essence is that it mandates a local authority to scan messages on platforms that are likely to contain child pornography. That's not a blanket scan of all messages everywhere.
        iamnothere 1y ago
        > platforms that are likely to contain child pornography So every platform, everywhere? Facebook and Twitter/X still have problems keeping up with this, Matrix constantly has to block rooms from the public directory, Mastodon mods have plenty of horror stories. Any platform with UGC will face this issue, but it’s not a good reason to compromise E2EE or mandate intrusive scanning of private messages. I would not be so opposed to mandated scans of public posts on large platforms, as image floods are still a somewhat common form of harassment (though not as common as it once was).
tokai 1y ago
The ombudsman will say some strong words and everything will continue as is.

mrweasel 1y ago

People continue to believe that the "Grundlov" works like the US constitution, and it's really nothing like that. If anything it's more of a transfer of legislation from the king to parliament. Most laws just leaves the details to be determined by parliament. Censorship really is one of the few laws that are pretty unambiguous, that's really just "No, never again". Not that this stops politicians, but that's a separate debate.