In a bold declaration that has sent shockwaves through the digital rights community, Denmark’s Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, the chief architect of the EU’s controversial Chat Control proposal, has asserted that encrypted messaging is not a fundamental civil liberty. Speaking in the context of combating organized crime, Hummelgaard argued for breaking what he called the “totally erroneous perception” that everyone has the right to communicate securely via encrypted services. This stance, highlighted in a recent post on Mastodon by the Fight Chat Control account, underscores a growing tension between law enforcement priorities and individual privacy rights in Europe.

The proposal, which Hummelgaard has championed, aims to mandate scanning of private messages for illegal content, effectively undermining end-to-end encryption on platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. According to reports from Politico in an article titled “Fighting crime blindfolded’: Europe is coming after encryption,” police and EU officials are pushing for greater access to encrypted communications, framing it as essential for tackling child sexual abuse material and organized crime. Yet, critics argue this approach risks eroding the foundational protections that encryption provides in an increasingly surveilled digital world.

The Erosion of Privacy as a Fundamental Right: Hummelgaard’s comments represent a paradigm shift, positioning privacy not as an inherent right but as a privilege that can be curtailed for security reasons. This perspective, if adopted widely, could normalize mass surveillance across the EU, compelling tech companies to implement backdoors or client-side scanning that preemptively inspect messages before encryption.

Such measures have profound implications for vulnerable groups whose safety hinges on secure communication. Journalists operating in repressive regimes, for instance, rely on encrypted apps to protect sources and share sensitive information without fear of interception. In regions like Eastern Europe or the Middle East, where state surveillance is rampant, tools like Signal have been lifelines, enabling reporters to expose corruption and human rights abuses. Without encryption, these professionals face heightened risks of retaliation, arrest, or worse, as evidenced by numerous cases documented by organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Activists, too, depend on private encryption to organize protests, share strategies, and evade authoritarian crackdowns. From Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movements to environmental campaigns in Latin America, encrypted messaging has empowered dissidents to coordinate safely. A Reuters fact-check on Hummelgaard’s statements, available in their article “Fact Check: Hummelgaard did not say Denmark could ban messaging apps,” clarifies that while he expressed a desire to restrict platforms facilitating crime, he acknowledged legal barriers—yet his rhetoric fuels fears of broader bans or mandates that could silence these voices.

Encryption as a Digital Safe: To illustrate the ethical challenges in denying the right to encrypted communication, consider it akin to owning a personal safe. Just as individuals have the right to securely store private belongings—documents, valuables, or even potentially illicit items—without providing authorities a universal key, so too should they be able to communicate privately without default governmental access. A safe might occasionally hide contraband, but society doesn’t mandate that all safes come with police backdoors; instead, law enforcement obtains warrants for specific investigations.

Why, then, should digital communication be treated differently? Hummelgaard’s push, as detailed in Wikipedia’s entry on Peter Hummelgaard, reflects a militant opposition to consumer encryption, drawing concern from privacy activists. Granting authorities blanket access to everyone’s messages because a minority misuse encryption for illegal purposes is akin to searching every home preemptively to catch a few thieves. This not only violates principles of proportionality but also sets a dangerous precedent for abuse, where governments could monitor political opponents or suppress dissent under the guise of crime prevention.

The chilling effects extend to everyday users, potentially stifling free expression and innovation. Tech industry backlash highlights privacy risks, warning that weakened encryption could expose sensitive data to hackers and foreign adversaries. For journalists and activists, the stakes are life-or-death: in authoritarian contexts, a single intercepted message can lead to imprisonment or violence.

Safeguarding Lives Through Secure Channels: Encryption isn’t merely a convenience; it’s a shield that has demonstrably saved lives. In conflict zones, humanitarian workers use encrypted apps to coordinate aid without tipping off hostile forces, while whistleblowers like those in the Panama Papers relied on secure channels to reveal global corruption. Denying this right, as Hummelgaard suggests, equates to disarming those who need protection most, prioritizing speculative security gains over proven safeguards.

Moreover, the analogy to a safe reveals the flawed logic: just as physical privacy rights aren’t forfeited due to criminal misuse, digital ones shouldn’t be either. Euronews, in its analysis “Return of chat control: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” points out Denmark’s staunch support for scanning, which could make such surveillance a reality across the EU. Yet, history shows that eroding encryption often leads to overreach, as seen in past surveillance scandals like Snowden’s revelations.

Ultimately, Hummelgaard’s position challenges the core of democratic values, where privacy enables free thought and association. As debates rage in forums like Hacker News discussions on “Danish government will shut down encrypted messaging,” the consensus among tech experts is clear: weakening encryption harms society more than it helps. For industry insiders, this isn’t just policy—it’s a battle for the future of secure, private communication in an interconnected world.