The Danes are smart, but history have repeatedly proven that people are deceptive, even the seemingly trustworthy ones that hands out promises for votes.

They have used Palantir for years. There is that.

Denmark is the embassy of American NSA in Europe.

It will, in one form or another. And after some time there are enough boiled frogs for further privacy invasive measures.

Of course it will pass. Think of the children

It might pass, but if it does, the courts will strike it down. Separation of powers still works in the EU.

In the legislative sense, it might eventually pass.

As has happened in every case so far (with increasing intensity and ease), the internet will route around it.

  sudo killall -STOP mediaanalysisd mediaanalysisd-access

Protests are forbidden too.

There was one this Sunday, but it wasn't even mentioned in the news.

Id sooner move to china than US

see also https://tuta.com/blog/france-law-encryption

It sounds like chat control will require Tor clients in Europe to scan traffic before it is encrypted and report material to (local?) governments. This could be enforced, on phones at least, with Android's new developer key signing requirements that are slated to be phased in one year from now (in 2026).

I think most people, if pressed, would share your evaluation. However, even though surveillance is always marketed and sold as a tool for law enforcement, I think the people proposing such bills are aware that it's primary use is for political control, power, and espionage.

Safety is the bait in the bait and switch. So the measure is not whether or not surveillance actually works for making people safer. But whether or not it actually works as bait.

It is additional tool. More tools -> better chance at catching the criminals.

Downsides are purely theoretical and only brought up by conspiracy theorists and academics.

(Technically correct, the best kind..)

It is never about bad guys or protect the children. It is a political control.

This is a very complex question.

Part of the answer is that they think the surveillance will be magically omniscient, because it's technology they don't understand.

Part of the answer is that they think that if there's a tool they could possibly have to give law enforcement more power, they must have it.

Part of it is that they don't care so much about actual bad guys, but about exercising absolute control over the general populace.

Part of it is that they don't believe that crime can actually be eliminated, but they do believe that they have to continue to take all possible measures against it.

And part of it is just that they don't think it's politically safe for them to oppose a measure like this (similar to, but not quite the same as, the second point above).

Ask your local corporate IT guy how many people browse porn on work computers, even though they must know it's logged.

I would have to assume Palantir or Crowdstrike's new European divisions.

The text, of course, excludes politicians and other important people(tm) from being monitored.