←back to thread

Denmark reportedly withdraws Chat Control proposal following controversy

(therecord.media)
568 points layer8 | 2 comments | 30 Oct 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
ineedasername ◴[31 Oct 25 03:35 UTC] No.45768131[source]▶
I’m continually astounded that so many people, faced with a societal problem, reflexively turn to “Hmmm, perhaps if we monitored and read and listened to every single thing that every person does, all of the time…”

As though it would 1) be a practical possibility and 2) be effective.

Compounding the issue is that the more technology can solve #1, the more these people fixate on it as the solution without regards to the lack of #2.

I wish there were a way, once and for all, to prevent this ridiculous idea from taking hold over and over again. If I could get a hold of such people when these ideas were in their infancy… perhaps I should monitor everything everyone does and watch for people considering the same as a solution to their problem… ah well, no, still don’t see how that follows logically as a reasonable solution.

replies(17): >>45768311 #>>45768758 #>>45768812 #>>45768845 #>>45768873 #>>45769030 #>>45769192 #>>45769801 #>>45769868 #>>45769961 #>>45770005 #>>45770264 #>>45770801 #>>45770827 #>>45771089 #>>45772424 #>>45776034 #
usernomdeguerre ◴[31 Oct 25 04:05 UTC] No.45768311[source]▶
The issue is that there is a place where this model ~is working. It's in China and Russia. The GFW, its Russian equivalent, and the national security laws binding all of their tech companies and public discussion do exactly these things in a way that has allowed their leadership to go unchallenged for decades now.

The rest of the world isn't stupid or silly for suggesting these policies. They're following a proven effective model for the outcomes they are looking for.

We do ourselves a disservice by acting like there is some inherent flaw in it.

replies(18): >>45768496 #>>45768599 #>>45768644 #>>45769338 #>>45769392 #>>45769722 #>>45770019 #>>45770099 #>>45770285 #>>45770405 #>>45770530 #>>45770788 #>>45771104 #>>45771169 #>>45771319 #>>45771623 #>>45771694 #>>45774191 #
1. ulrikrasmussen ◴[31 Oct 25 08:45 UTC] No.45769722[source]▶
But in those countries the intended goal is not just to stop CSAM, but primarily to censor communications and suppress the opposition from voicing their opinion. If you still want to give our politicians the benefit of doubt, then they don't, after all, want to actually censor communications in the same way to destroy democracy.

This is not because I support their mass surveillance proposal, I am strongly against it. I think that the politicians are naive (maybe even to the point of warranting the label stupid) and ignore the huge risks that exists of future governments to start using the mass surveillance platform, once it is in place, to start doing actual censorship. I am also extremely worried about the slow scope creep that will inevitably result from this; today it starts with CSAM and terrorism, next year it is about detecting recruiting of gang members, and in a couple of years it is about detecting small-scale drug transactions.

replies(1): >>45769816 #
2. bondarchuk ◴[31 Oct 25 08:58 UTC] No.45769816[source]▶
It is barely relevant to even think about the personal opinions of politicians, if the systemic outcome is the same.