Name and shame: the fascist pushing for chat control is the Danish minister Peter Hummelgaard
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
277 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
43544 readers
729 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Im sure he will volunteer his internet usage data as a moral example?
There is literally a demanded exemption for politicians and military/police.
If he did, it wouldn't make things any better. Don't even give them the idea. "Look, I have nothing to fear from the cops because I agree with the cops, be like me, and nothing bad will happen"
Of course not. I bet he thinks he is above the rest of us.
Yeah, my comment was sarcastic.
I don't understand how this keeps coming up.
Do we need to go back to physical written letters?! Or do governments want access to all our correspondence both physical and digital.
As far as I understand it, if the proposal was voted on and lost, there'd be a cooldown period for a certain time before they're allowed to resubmit the same thing. The people pushing this are using a loophole of sorts where they retract the bill when it looks like it's not going to pass and then resubmit it later with slight alterations. It's an attrition tactic; they only have to win once whereas we have to repeal it every time.
I'm not too familiar with EU politics, but is there a constitution, and if so, is it possible to amend it to explicitly grant a right to privacy in communications to permenantly block attempts?
The EU has treaties which serve as a constitution of sorts – duties, powers, and limits of the EU, and its legal relationship with its member states. These treaties are signed by all member states and together make up the EU's constitutional basis.
New treaties are signed every now and again with the purpose of amending, extending and redefining previous ones.
There's e.g. the Maastricht Treaty (1997) which laid the ground work for a single currency and strengthened the power of the European Parliament (each member state has a number of seats and the representatives are elected nationally by a public vote).
The most recent one is the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which among other things, again, shifted the power balance in the EU in favour of the Parliament. It also strengthened EU's position as a full international legal personality. Other changes were to make the union's Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding and to explicitly allow a member state to leave the union.
There's no EU Constitution, but there is the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has next to nothing to do with the EU.
It is an international organization operating under The Council of Europe, which again, has little to do with the EU.
The Council of Europe predates the EU and is closer to the UN in its manner of operation. It does not make binding laws.
It has 46 member states (the EU has 27) including countries such as Albania, Armenia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Russia was expelled in 2022.
What can be confusing however is that The Council of Europe uses the same flag as the EU.
True, but the EU member states are members of it, and while complicated, ECHR rulings are generally respected by members and the EU. Why make things simple, right? :-)
Again, they they are completely different organizations. It's not a question of simplicity or complexity.
The ECHR looks to address human rights issues with the cooperation of its 46 member states.
The EU is (mostly) a trade union comprising of 27 member states.
The UN, NATO, and WTO also have many European member states and again are different organizations.
You made your point, and it was clearly understood the first time. Perhaps you don't understand my point?
This is one of the things I don't get about any of this shit - if we were talking about physical items, letters, a hard landline, physical art, written medical information, etc. this would require a warrant, court order or whatever. Why the fuck is digital anything viewed as a free-for-all by govts, AI techbros, data brokers et al. How do they not understand that just because something is 'digital' it doesn't deserve the same protections as before?!
The situation is all kinds of messed up, capitalism also has a great deal to do with it. Problem is, that you as an individual will be known as stealing copyright material if you simply copied it, whereas someone/something else like AI would be treated entirely differently.
It kind of does look like a capitalist utopia with the rule breaking ai and all, authoritarianism being the other prevalent power.
I truly believe our politicians are out of touch. Either because they themselves are too old or because they dont understand the underlying concepts.
What truly upsets me is understanding things like USBs and HDDs still exists. So if someone wanted to share "illegal content" completely "offline" it's already possible to do so. How does scanning everyone's personal "letters" help track down people sharing "illegal content" hand to hand.
My colleagues and I never stopped encoding everything important before committing it to a digital context. We have never trusted the powers that be not to grab for more power and control.
Fascists never get tired.
Everyone eventually takes the forever nap
Who is pushing this? We need names of the people, names of the companies, names of the think tanks, they need to be made publicly known.
First name is the Danish minister of justice, Peter Hummelgaard. No idea who's behind him, but he's currently a stain on Danish politics.
The entire Danish government is to blame. He is just the face of it, but he wouldn't be pushing this hard for it if it wasn't an important project for the government. The arrogant fucks really thinks getting this through will be some sort of prestige win for their EU presidency.
That is how far up their own asses they all are, and not only reflected in this, but in basically most of their domestic policies.
theil is the $ behind em, he's trying to be the new murdoch
Peter Hummelgård is a man of Palantir, whose software solution Gotham, in a customized version, is in use since years by the Danish Internal Intelligence and Police.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Denmark is a US puppet. This is legalising backdoors for three letter agencies from across the pond.
I can totally see a scenario where the US government tells them "keep pushing chat control or we're going to invade Greenland."
Danish person here. Sorry about my country. Our politicians are totally decoupled from the average voter, and propose shit like this all the time.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Oh for fuck sake... Do they not get the fucking memo?
WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS BULLSHIT PROPOSAL.
Specially since they want the control to not apply to them. Pieces of shit, the lot of them.
I am of the opinion that politicians like these should be bullied relentlessly. Make them not be able to leave their house without getting "buus" thrown into their face. Want to be hierarchically superior than your constituents? Well, guess what, you will not be able to show up in public places. Piece of shit. This also applies to billionaires.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why not make it a felony to propose laws that are ruled to be "obviously unconstitutional"? A citizen can go to jail for even trying to break a regular law, so it seems reasonable to do the same for politicians who try to break one of the foundational laws
load more comments
(1 replies)
Something's goddamn fishy in the state of Denmark
I propose this law:
Ban politicians from trying to do this shit AND strengthen privacy laws and throttle data collection. Allow anonymous SIMs and phone calling. You might ask 'but what about drug dealers and terrorists?" Trust me, they've been able to handle them before without any of these bullshit laws, AND if they have a REASON to suspect those individuals then due process can be applied, warrants, and shit like that. But for the average person, no.
The Patriot act and many of the anti-terror laws passed in wake of 9/11 need to be gotten rid of, they have had no discernible good effect. I have to repeat myself... the fact that 9/11 wasn't foiled was due to a MONUMENTAL intelligence failure. They had warnings, tips, intelligence, everything they needed to stop the ploy, but they just sat on their asses and did nothing. The whole 'we need laws to help prevention, to be proactive and not reactive'... dude, intelligence agencies foiled plots before any of these laws were passed, and they CAN be proactive if they want. Conspiracy to commit a crime IS a crime, and that included hijacking airplanes to use as weapons.
You're speaking of the bi partisan patriot act?
Yes, and the Canadian acts that passed around the same time... and the newer Canadian bills passed and being proposed that are basically even more hardcore than the patriot act, except WITHOUT the threat of any terrorists. Canada right now is like 'we never needed these laws, but just WANT them anyway'.
Peter Thiel and a puppet.
It's so lovely to see how the mask has finally fallen off and we get to see the EU as the totalitarian regime that it really is.
Could this voluntary chat control be a weapon to kill encrypted messaging, through defamation?
If the non-encrypted messaging apps start promoting that they have implemented measures to protect children, could this be used to make people believe that other services support child abuse?
Possibly, their only choice in furthering their evil ambitions is manipulation. It's only natural they will play the blaming game once they're situated in - authoritarianism is all about it.
Living in Denmark, I have tried bringing things up about chat control in the office and outside, and Danes' reaction come in 2 flavors:
- "Peter Hummelgård is an idiot", by those who didn't vote for one of the "left-centrist" parties governing right now.
- Silence.
It is really the same reaction.
Also, I am surprised by how many people here learn from me that the Danish police is working with Palantir.
But Denmark is a place where the main issue right now that there are local elections is that there will be a way too high percentage of foreigners voting, mostly because the number of Danes going to vote have been dwindling for some time.
I guess chat control and Palantir are technologies built for the kind of people who don't trust the "foreign neighbor who is into politics".
Before brexit this could have been a milkshake
End stage capitalism comes for us all eventually. Unless you believe your country to be exceptional, then it will obviously never happen!
view more: next ›