Denmark's Justice Minister calls encrypted messaging a false civil liberty

Perceived Hypocrisy and Exemptions

• Many comments focus on claims that EU/ChatControl-style proposals exempt politicians or security services while surveilling everyone else.
• This is framed as “privacy for me, not for thee,” reinforcing distrust and calls for leaking or exposing officials’ own communications as a “taste” of their policy.
• Some point out that only state security staff, not all politicians, are formally exempt, but others note that this is exactly the group that should never be exempt.

Encryption as Privacy / Human Right

• Strong view: private conversation is a fundamental human right, and in the digital era that implies strong encryption.
• References to UN and EU human-rights texts show privacy and correspondence protections but no explicit mention of encryption, which commenters see as a gap being exploited.
• Several argue encryption is just the modern equivalent of sealed letters or closed rooms.

Technical and Security Arguments

• Repeated claim: you can’t “ban math.” Outlawing or weakening encryption just pushes serious criminals and state actors to bespoke tools, steganography, or one-time pads.
• Backdoors are seen as a national security liability: any systematic access path will eventually leak or be abused for espionage, blackmail, or political manipulation.
• Some warn that banning mainstream encrypted apps reduces “cover traffic,” making remaining encrypted channels easier to target.

Effectiveness Against Crime and Abuse

• Skepticism that mass scanning or mandated access would meaningfully improve investigations, with examples (e.g. Epstein emails) where unencrypted evidence already existed but wasn’t used for years.
• Others note honeypot “secure” services have been effective against criminals, but a counterpoint cites legal setbacks and improved criminal OPSEC.

Law, History, and Constitutional Friction

• Comparisons to postal secrecy: historically, governments transported sealed mail without inspecting contents; today’s push to scan all digital messages is seen as a break from that norm.
• EU, national constitutions, and conventions are quoted both as supporting privacy and as containing broad exceptions (“national security,” “public safety”) that can legalize wide surveillance.

Broader Political and Democratic Concerns

• Many see ChatControl-like efforts as steps toward a surveillance state and a betrayal of democratic principles, potentially fueling support for extremist politics.
• Some argue if any group’s communications should be monitored, it should be public servants and officeholders, not the general population.