Johan Rønby’s Post

View profile for Johan Rønby

Owner of STROMNING APS | Associate Professor in Mathematics at Roskilde University | Opinions are my own

The flawed reasoning behind #chatcontrol Maybe the Danish Minister of Justice, Peter Hummelgaard, is not aware that encryption is a relatively simple mathematical operation to implement in a code so banning it is like banning multiplication or prime numbers. With a backdoor introduced in end-to-end encryption, we will all be permanently vulnerable to massive, irreversible data breaches from hackers. The pedos will quickly find out how to implement and use an encryption algorithm in customised communication software if the official messaging channels (Messenger, WhatsApp etc.) get backdoors. I don't know what the solution is to child abuse, but I know that chatcontrol is not it.

  • text
Eleftherios Provatos

Hardware / Firmware / Repair Electronics Engineer

3d

More and more governments around the world are losing legitimacy as the standard of living , affecting everyone including the children, is falling sharply over the last decade+, but somehow they now started caring about the children, in them wanting to know our every thought. Sure, Jan..... 🤣

Thomas Oldbury

Lead Electronics Design Engineer at Thermoteknix

4d

Chat Control needs to be stopped.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated! (The Borg) I hope the brain implant chips will be covered by the government health plan :/

Anton Evgrafov

Associate Professor at Aalborg University

5d

Ban multiplication! Preserve prime numbers!

RAHUL KRISHNA

PhD Candidate, Research Assistant at Institute for Fluid Mechanics and Environmental Physics, Leibniz-Universität Hannover

6d

No right exists in a vacuum. Privacy and security both matter, but framing them as mutually exclusive misses the nuance. You don’t automatically lose safety because others have privacy, just as you don’t automatically gain safety because the state can monitor everything. Also there’s no such thing as a society completely free of crime. Governments can and should reduce crime, but promising a “crime-free” society as a right is unrealistic and risks justifying unlimited surveillance.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories