- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
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.
You must log in or # to comment.
We must break with the totally erroneous perception that governments have the right to trample on peoples privacy.
‘We must break’ and not ‘We must convince’.
The real misconception is that breaking encryption in the big services including Signal and Telegram would stop criminals from using encryption. Unfortunately any compromised service can be used for unbreakable encrypted communication, including gmail. So the only thing this is good for is listening in on our crap…
You know I’m starting to think the Danes just might suck.
Dane here. I don’t think we suck. But that guy does.
Don’t be racist against all of them just because a few assholes happen to have that citizenship
Not now but it’s a democracy. If they keep supporting him in the next elections their society can be judged.
I’m racist against them because they enslaved my gamgamgamgamgamgamgamgamgamgamgamgamgam’s sister
They’ve gone a bit insane
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.
Yes! And Trillian, man I miss Trillian…
Thanks for the nostalgia.
2010 - back then I was an insecure teenager, finding refuge and empowerment in technology, anxious that I will die alone. One year before finishing high school and two before meeting my future wife. I texted her also using Pidgin for ICQ and Google Talk (without the OTR, of course).
Now I’m a self-confident software developer, instead anxious that I will die in a fascist dictatorship, and absolutely sick of the modern shitnology, preferring to care for plants on the balcony after work, because they are something real and not annoying.
Tech is just not fun anymore. But maybe it’s for the better, that made me go outside more.
But back on topic:
prohibiting encryption is like saying people should not be able to have private conversations without a microphone in the room which the government can always tune in to, if they see the need. Obviously completely ridiculous.
I guess just in case I’ll keep my illegal encryption software somewhere hidden and encrypted. Will be fun when we will start sending crypto data hidden steganographically in a wall of text that reads like bad LLM output. Have fun scanning all the traffic looking for cues that are not there. Anything can be encoded in almost anything else. There is absolutely no way that a government, no matter how powerful, could enforce any such restriction in a bullet proof way against anyone who puts in the tiniest bit of effort.
Concerning making math illegal… Reminds me of DeCSS. Been there, done that. When people were wearing shirts with the illegal prime number. Fun times.
There is AI. Facebook doesn’t have to forward encrypted messages. The internet can be locked down to prevent encryptes messages.
How? I doubt you’re able to propose a solution that can’t be broken in 5 minutes, the only solution is to either accept it or block 100% of the internet, if you leave even a single write access allowed it can be used to communicate, and if it can be used to communicate, it can be used to send encrypted messages.
Single messages can be hidden in random conversations e.g. by typos or other patterns. But the AI will flag anything that could be used to send more than twitter messages.
If network access is only allowed for bootlocked phones, how would you send those messages but by typing them by hand?
So there will be 10 messages or more for one meaningful message.
That’s useful for activists but destroys any ability to organise a movement that needs to recruit followers.
Single messages can be hidden in random conversations
That’s all it takes, cryptographic communication is a list of single messages, if you can pass one without being detected you’re done.
If network access is only allowed for bootlocked phones, how would you send those messages but by typing them by hand?
First of all that is impossible, TCP/IP is an open protocol, you can build your own small computer and connect it to a network. But let’s for a moment assume this was possible, you can encrypt/decrypt messages with an offline machine and send them to the online one by any number of means, e.g. Build a QR code and scan it with your phone.
That’s useful for activists but destroys any ability to organise a movement that needs to recruit followers.
A movement that needs to recruit followers won’t encrypt their messages since they need people to be able to read them. They could use public key encryption to ensure that people could send messages to them and they can sign messages, but encrypting the messages is pointless. You only encrypt messages when you trust the other party, otherwise anyone could intercept and encryption is pointless.
The Internet can’t be locked down to block shit.
Tell me what you do if only registered messenger services are allowed, that run on phones with intact boot loaders?
Then forbid any peer to peer connection that wasn’t requested by those services.
No VPNs, no unlicensed servers.
There can be a free internet in Africa but Europe can be locked down more than China if so desired.
You do know that cryptography predates computers right? Anything that can send text can be used to send encrypted messages, don’t believe me? Here you go:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hQGMA8yC6PUxUgJ0AQv/bN6XNyCbXByubaxT9SrBIg+qrvJFT8Qp5c8m4IWtt80s Ugm3H4cWleXFxhQkq8THI2VnXdyNDGFlhpOB0eTeVpXkKlwlWF/cjPV3pCmKnv86 xOGevoKU4Qb0IPN/MAugHHbGPpnPTjH9Mj6WMMA4UwwmPcGvposvpMDrvkbKE4xf RYj1o9EwGcqcMW0IEzXoX2g2ViZ2qbJGfkTBqm1+SR7uIKet/00MrG6uSW5jv1Hd a6lyNqu4kiYSHGtQWlLypJDZLe1lbKVu7FKpiE3ZiA7Lt8b4eb8kqdfFzwCZv1L/ kwQbYB+rc88SdwSsYFATV7+hytyyJuZf2WazKe7NzUf8EVkia+I+/WHuuBFzAt6I 2+rEDVZE9MDnwPJkuFKUAL42M9B5UIyKKDDfgbnxiVX9P5MIZTFNWU4d7r75teQT sPx9gS8BrDggXuC5QjhuyWMQStdFpvh/qtIQPL+XK57X5bKPmKNHGloSV+VjcMvm WFnpx3Vj99EwzN7XPYfx0ukBfDJrxZUZEls7y5IdlG6pczxd1yqIgrahKVe8PZrj chH8oT2rAyxqYh0k3ks2GKuuuGI8ICp50d7CsDhexc3Htao+qszIxLk4Jd7VZkkg rV9oR34r8Z4WLybhWA10wH4FRXfIIppCwocm03wiKUNRadeLLXsnlPGgdiWMjlN8 1JAoYXTMyCWcjM+NFRf4+nCb3Az/Fn7BbtXJU3UcqdBwoCEZZ2sObY3Jy+rLEBYb NofoNHS2iLZlihdf4kKp8UfwqzQ2bHdSN4r28SVZv+bTnGilH/FGGoU2fkfPPux6 4q/hwtRRryBTgaGk+LqExDXXXBnM+pwjeVZepzEOcUwbTD3E7sBOD7ETW6GvpRQZ nrcaVeH5YcbBq5QtMXP6WUcDas5JHld+Us8wFOctz5t7IGUwHKZ8Clsk+dfWuoK5 X9eaFCGdfy/xuL8CZ1X99oVO8BATekRaZcNYmWdopf1P339qw0mDusF7r5q3YynZ HqylFuIro0GK4xorABpErnSzyP5BQMacE5wI5XDWZbkWpocYpNXetl3ZSN+FhW4m Xa+LVKKZuGxC7lBYlAbzCFQbSXOrdCD6YTG6D1cD6hd3PjxRVl3wpcCdzo5YFISW +P/XtQe/SV8ZnkN+z+O9Iuu9ajQ/dNL3HZ+y12KBxQDNErKoApDBfEqBgOqj7t8r RS9CmP2p0UVZThh440FPkJOVN4lml2AxWuMCXJqacu83y0px0lr9Y+0gn3I3Odej rg== =kS8o -----END PGP MESSAGE-----There’s no way you will be able to read the message above unless I give you the key for it. How would they stop me from sending that?
Also, are they going to firewall my VPS? What about my personal server? What if we use text files on my personal server, using ssh keys to connect to it? There’s no way to block all cryptographed communication without blocking all communication.
If you can only send facebook messages, facebook can block anything with more than 5 random characters.
VPS - virtual private server? The server is behind a router. Of course it can be firewalled. It’s also on a host server so all your files can be read without you noticing.
There’s no way to block all cryptographed communication without blocking all communication.
Everything can be blocked by default and only AI monitored channels from official services can be accepted. Short messages can be hidden with crypto tricks but that is a very limited freedom for very few people.
I’d not use them?
How exactly would you get that implemented?
At each router, store the allowed subnets of acceptable servers and dop any other connection. So P2P is blocked by default. But if a connection is needed, the messenger services get an API to unlock routes for channels that they control.
I think you are vastly overestimating what anyone can do.
All telecom providers can be required by law to implement it and Cisco and the other router suppliers can add that feature to their operating systems, if they not already have for countries like China.
The free internet can become a sandbox in a matter of weeks, maybe even days or hours.
The illusion of freedom is too valuable to be destroyed unnecessarily. But if people start to do serious protests I would expect the internet to go down like in Türkiye.
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.
It’s for the same reason. China is starting to dominate the global economy and European countries have to protect theirs. It’s unbelievable that they believe that it is a good idea.
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
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
I think they were joking
i wish i could just assume that around here…
Idont know. People starving is one of the main talking points whrn it comes to soviet union and communism. I woul think they were eitherbeing sarcastic or a troll.
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!
Afraid not: The USSR had all sorts of food supply issues and even intentionally starved people.
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
Goddammit, I thought you were being sarcastic before I saw your replies
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
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.
“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.”
Breaking encryption would be an unmitigated disaster, Peter Hummelgaard either doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about or is completely insane.
Both
There’s been a lot of that going around…
What is actually going on with denmark? What is their problem with privacy? Have they always been like that?
It’s the current government which is comprised of old parties (well one new party but founded by a well-known politician) full of people who are basically politicians as a career. They care about power and control. Most everything else comes second.
Luckily we have elections soon-ish, but unfortunately people will probably keep voting for these parties, as they’ve done in the past. It is what it is.
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.
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.
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.
From the snippets that I read here and there it looks like Denmark has been like this for a long time and it keeps getting worse. They have a very high density of surveillance cameras, loose privacy laws and recently closed their postal services for delivering letters. It only makes sense then to end encryption so you can make no communication whatsoever without the government knowing about every detail.
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?
Danes, if you re-elect this man, you are condoning this outrageous position.
After all, that is a privilege reserved for politicians.
Does Denmark not have a secret of correspondence/letters kind of constitutional right?
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.
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.
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.
