Danish privacy activist Lars Andersen raided by police
twitter.com
twitter.com
On the flip-side, he's sort of right. I assume that putting a GPS tracker on the car of our minister of justice is illegal, but that same minister (Peter Hummelgaard) is one of the key forces behind anti-encryption here in Europe. Similarily the politicians he stalk and harras are pro Palintir getting access to all our data, so Lars Andersen is sort of giving the politicians a taste of what they want to give everyone.
He goes way too far though. Especially if he actually wants change, the way he "protests" is directly damaging his own cause, since nobody is going to sympathise with harrassing children.
I suspect next time he'll have his cameras running with backup powers though.
This is an unequivocally reasonable approach. The prohibition of cannabis is a grotesque charade.
However you are putting words in my mouth, in a typical American style of prosecution-->banning. It is quite possible to legalise and regulate marijuana. American halfway legalisation creates an industry which funds OC and can't be prosecuted. Canadian legalisation creates a revenue source for the provincial governments while providing vertical integration and control, and the volume of illegal weed has plummeted.
I don't have time to be an expert in every subject. I appreciate using the collective power of society to put stamps of approval on things, so I can use language with an element of trust.
If I want to smoke, I want to know what I'm smoking, and don't want to waste time trying to work out the exact chemical composition. I'm not sure why anybody wouldn't want that control over their bodies.
I quite like the idea of words actually having meanings which are enforced, and not being vague concepts coined on the street by people who don't have me or my community at heart.
If politicians are attempting to undermine your children’s right to privacy forever, and yet these same politicians don’t like when this is being done to their own children…it shows either an astonishing level of hypocrisy and/or stupidity.
Europe is filled with these types of authoritarian urbanites, who make decisions from an elitist “i know what’s best for you” attitude while eating 6 course dinners. This is the same class of European leaders who steered the regions entire energy/economic/social policy so bad that the whole European model of the last few decades is in slow collapse and fiscally unsustainable. Yet ironically, the most common phrase you’ll hear while eating these 6 course dinners is “sustainability.”
These people are some of the worst hypocrites on pretty much every topic imaginable and need to be called out for it.
Compare this to Jesper Graugaard, who is know locally as the "Chromebook-dad". He's been campaigning against big tech in our schools for like a decade, and after 6 years we recently had a ruling forbidding our cities from using Google services without proper data ownership agreements. He's obviously not the only party behind this, but he's a massive force in the agenda against non-EU tech in our schools. He does it through reform and political campaigning.
Jesper has wide public support, Lars is not viewed favourable. This story hasn't even hit our news, I've only heard about it here on HN.
Big tech (private companies who largely just care about profits) and foreign governments (the Americans for example), are way lower on my “things Europe should be worried” about list. They’re there of course, but lower.
Private companies don’t have the ability to ruin your life in the same way your own government does. They just want your money. And the US government is truly a disinterested party. 99% of Americans couldn’t place Denmark on a map (I’m not kidding). When push comes to shove, they fundamentally do not care what happens here.
The real threat is our own governments, who we have given the legal authority to enact all the negative outcomes that will come from totalitarian erosions of privacy and over regulation of individuals. Building up this scary “foreign boogieman” and stoking this moral panic is what is enabling the authoritarian action.
Pointing fingers at Big Tech and the US is a giant distraction tactic so you don’t look at the terrible things our own domestic politicians have done and the fact they have zero plans to do the hard things needed to get us out of this mess. It's just champagne and smiling over dinner, while the old eat the young, the government eats the private sector, and endless legislation eats away your opportunity to do anything more exciting than build powerpoints at a braindead consulting firm.
Unless you think there can never be a democratic consensus in favor of privacy, therefore the only way is for a small vanguard of privacy activists to impose their will on the hostile majority and establish a totalitarian privacy dictatorship. Then it wouldn't matter so much whether you look good in the court of popular opinion or not.
> totalitarian privacy dictatorship
That’s an illogical concept. What does that even mean?
And what happens when your money is gone? What happens when the government has no money anymore because the super rich took it all? Your life turns to shit real fast when you can't afford housing, healthcare and food.
I get when you are in an authoritarian country, or one on the path to becoming so like the US, that the government looks to be the most dangerous actor. But in the west that is still free, its the corps that I worry about the most.
It’s an extremely common bias on the left just as the anti-government bias on the right.
Both public and private entities are capable of abusing power.
Only one group however is legally entitled to take 50% of your money regardless of the quality of their product, by holding a gun to your head. They can even take more via the phantom tax of inflation using deficit spending (as is happening now all over Europe). This group is the one you should fear more if looking at it from first principles.
The current runaway deficits across Europe and rising political unrest prove this.
The only thing companies can do to “take” your money is offer you a service that’s better than all alternatives that you chose to buy voluntarily.
If you think that’s the bigger authoritarian risk something is wrong with your mental model of how the world works.
I think that is a pretty good deal and I see no inherent reason for why 'the gov is out there to steal from us' (makes no sense), because it basically IS us. Corps on the other hand, they are explicitly there to get your money.
So in my model the only reason the government is bad is because it is influenced by corporations (and because people vote for rightwing parties), and the only reason corporations are good is because the government makes them so. This is a bit black and white to make it very explicit, but basically that is the idea.
And there are some flaws here of course and a lot of nuances, but I don't think this is wrong or biased at all. In fact, I think everybody else is wrong or biased and am ready to argue why, but that should come at no surprise.
I would categorize your position as the textbook left-leaning bias (Government good, corporation bad), and fundamentally incorrect. But NOT because I'm on the opposite side.
I believe the only rational position to take is the center (ie. "things are complicated" and "incentives rule all").
There are huge holes in your logic:
1) The default state of humanity is not utopian prosperity. The default state is starving naked in the dirt. So where does the tax money the collective uses to "take care of each other" come from? Why are only the rich countries providing good benefits...and how did they get rich in the first place?
2) If one is being honest in their analysis, enterprises competing to create surplus value is the only reason your government is able to get the tax revenue to provide you with anything. Otherwise you're just redistributing dirt among naked people.
3) You've ignored the existence of incentives. Your view rests on the fallacy humans in government are a different species than the humans in private companies and will act more selflessly. This is provably false. 99.99% of government workers have zero exposure to the accountability of elections, have no competitive pressures, no fear of losing their job, and thus do not make things better or innovate. People in private companies on the other hand have all those incentives.
4) Historically, whenever we give a society over wholly to government, it has resulted in disaster and human tragedy on a mass scale every single time. If government is fundamentally good, why aren't wholly government-driven societies better? How come when China privatized and reduced its percentage of government driven economy from 90% to 30% (where they sit today), it made everyone more prosperous by a factor of 100x?
5) Current trendlines all indicate the "High trust European socialism" model is in slow collapse across Europe. Like the USSR (you could call it USSR-light given EU average has now reached 55% government driven economy), they stopped innovating and are losing the private industry surplus to tax and redistribute. Germany, UK, France, Finland (my country) etc. are all in deep shit right now.
6) Cooperatives are legal in basically all developed countries. If the collectivist model drove more value for people, how come cooperatives don't dominate all sectors of the economy?
sixty one percent of statistics are fabricated on the spot?
Since the Rohingya genocide we can no longer pretend that Big Tech is apolitical.
Private interest now owns not only your personal life and all your interaction with society and is completely necessary at every step for upbringing children but they also influence elections, not only in authoritarian regimes but also in what we used to think of as liberal democracies.
A select few, not limited to Thiel and Musk, clearly wielded some form of control over the world's biggest economic and military power. Not only classical political questions such as taxation but also including influence over paramilitary powers. That influence only came to a halt when it came to what to do about the Middle East.
The political idea that governments are more important powers than private organizations haven't been based in any real world experience for the past almost three decades now.
> He's been campaigning against big tech in our schools for like a decade
> I'm Danish and lars kragh andersen is a bit of a grey zone. He obviously goes over the line, he tried to put GPS trackers on the cars of ministers. He "stalks" their families, and dox their children online. He gave an interview on how he'd ignore people carrying a kilo gram of weed when he was a cop because he doesn't agree with the "war on drugs".
> On the flip-side, he's sort of right. I assume that putting a GPS tracker on the car of our minister of justice is illegal, but that same minister (Peter Hummelgaard) is one of the key forces behind anti-encryption here in Europe. Similarily the politicians he stalk and harras are pro Palintir getting access to all our data, so Lars Andersen is sort of giving the politicians a taste of what they want to give everyone.
> He goes way too far though. Especially if he actually wants change, the way he "protests" is directly damaging his own cause, since nobody is going to sympathise with harrassing children.
> I suspect next time he'll have his cameras running with backup powers though.
I guess they need to ascertain whether he's operating organically, or at the behest of another nation, and whether he's scouting out ministers for something bigger in the future.
Though, the irony in all this, is that it all could've been avoided if the government weren't acting at the behest of another nation, and scouting out what they can get away with on their authoritarian warpath. Maybe the police are arresting the wrong people.
that's what activist have to do to shake people
A lot of times people that say this don't make a strong case that some theoretical more moderate protest would be effective. There is just a feeling that if they personally feel offended by the actions of the protester then it's probably a bad thing.
In reality it's often more complicated. I know some people that are involved with controversial protests, and the effectiveness of their actions is definitely something they think about. It can't be too extreme, that will put people off like you say. But often there is conversations like in this thread, "this protester goes too far, but they do have a point". This moves the Overton window in the desired direction.
The goal isn't too make you like the protester, it's to make you think about the issues.
But it's easy to push to one side or another
No wonder he gets raided, at one point it becomes a topic about protecting one's family, left or right, moral or crook doesn't matter anymore.
Its not activist anymore in any meaningful sense, just a fanatic.
You just committed exactly the kind of escalation that you condemn when it's about him.
So what if someone can vouch for him? What's that worth? "Vouching" is worthless in any circumstance I can think of, and nobody can give you guarantees about anything. I can't vouch that you won't do exactly the same, or that you weren't the masked police who raced to the breakers so he's not filmed while breaking the law (innocent people have nothing to hide, right?), or that you're not one of the politicians pushing for oppressive laws for your personal benefit.
Just to be clear - there is no actual vouching, there never was, nor any plans for that. Fanatics are unpredictable, it doesn't matter in which area, their decisions are primarily emotional. He certainly behaved as one. Rest are details.
Or do you consider family stalking as a correct sane approach that actually achieves the goal effectively?
My observation of these activists is usually that they seek attention at any cost. They will hurt people to achieve that attention. Worse, I don't even think it's about the movement. They just want the attention personally. Others in the movement tacitly condone this behaviour.
I think the most frustrating part of this is that they claim it's to raise awareness. Who among us has not heard of global warming? Who has not heard of data privacy? The reality is that they're not getting the public support they desire because people just don't agree with their goals or beliefs, not because the public is "unaware."
Most people aren't this particular brand of irrational.
That's also the line most terrorist groups use.
Its not exactly wrong i suppose. 9/11 did get Americans to think about the middle east a lot more.
Oft repeated but untrue. Terrorism, empirically, doesn’t work. Non-violent protest, and armed insurrection (aimed at the state, not its population) do. Sometimes freedom fighters can benefit from terrorism. But they are distinct strategies with separate targets.
Eh, the history of Islamism comes out of rebelling against secular dictators who had a habit of imprisoning their thought leaders.
How many retaliatory terror attacks on americans performed by citizen of those countries?
What point are you trying to make? US bad? Anything more thoughtful to offer?
The US are an empire and they have behaved as an empire over the last 70 years (bombing, overthrowing governments, supporting dictators). By historical standard, they have proved less coercive than empires of proportionally comparable reach. Think of the Mongols, the Assyrians, the Japanese...
The last time I know USA did a terror attack was japan in ww2, but everyone did terror bombing during that war, and the first world stopped doing terror bombings since then. If USA still ran that doctrine you would have Tehran and the rest of major Iranian cities leveled to the ground now, that is what it looks like when the strongest military in the world perform terror attacks.
I guess it's okay we napalmed Vietnam and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians because it was "part of a larger operation"?
American Exceptionalism is a disease.
> When did USA bomb a civilian house that wasn't a part of a larger operation
Why does that matter? The attacks on the Twin Towers were also part of a larger operation, does that excuse the attacks in any way?
> Terrorist attacks only target civilians
Nope, terrorism can include literally anything when Power deems it convenient.
https://stratnewsglobal.com/europe/united-kingdom/uk-charges... : British MPs on Wednesday voted to declare pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action a terrorist organisation, after its activists broke into a military base and damaged two aircraft
> I have never seen such an attack by USA
That may very well be true, but the world is a lot bigger than what your eyes can capture. "I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" is a state of mind that most people grow out of around the age of 8 months.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre : When the soldiers got to the village, they did not find any NLF troops. Despite this, many soldiers began to kill the villagers, mainly elderly people, women, and children
> [the USA] always try to target military or leaders
Bless your heart.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/timeline-us-strikes-... : The US military has killed at least 207 people in strikes that have destroyed 66 vessels
> The last time I know USA did a terror attack was japan in ww2
Yet another example of "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/24/worlddispatch.... : To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11
> the first world stopped doing terror bombings since then
Nixon and Kissinger were not part of the first world, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu : Apart from the large human toll, perhaps the most powerful and direct impact of the bombing was the political backlash it caused [..] The U.S. carpet bombing of Cambodia was partly responsible for the rise of what had been a small-scale Khmer Rouge insurgency, which now grew capable of overthrowing the Lon Nol government
Nixon decided to keep the bombing a secret from the American people as to admit to bombing an officially neutral nation would damage his credibility
> that is what it looks like when the strongest military in the world perform terror attacks
We know perfectly well what it looks like: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/12/22/2025-in-gaza-12...
The US military was averaging only 12 deaths in the years before withdraw.
Most of what the taliban was doing is closer to asymmetric warfare than terrorism.
That’s certainly not how it works.
They just became highly unpopular amongst the populations they were trying to liberate (which generally preferred more peaceful solutions) and lost their support base and had to disband.
Do you have an historical example?
Both words have identical meanings, the only difference is if you happen to agree with the people commiting the violent acts or not.
Literally every terrorist group ever claims they are responding to some sort of violence or oppression.
Only online. The Viet Cong weren’t targeting civilians. They hit American soldiers. Targeting military and narrow political power are the hallmark of proper rebellions. Targeting civilians is how terrorism works.
The closest analog to terrorism in warfare is actually strategic air campaigns. Dresden and the London Blitz are closer to terrorism than e.g. the uprising in Bangladesh or even the Taliban toppling the Karzai regime. And lo and behold, strategic air campaigns have a history of uniting the enemy much more than undoing them.
People also don’t use the term to relate to rebellions. It’s more an internet meme or cases where like a few people call e.g. Russia a terrorist state by analogy. Freedom fighters fighting rebellion tend to work to keep civilians on their side. When they don’t, they become terrorists and tend to lose.
Not an expert either. I haven’t seen one make this case. What I have seen is cross-conflict studies on the success of terrorism, and that sets my baseline for Afghanistan being a special case. (Domestic terrorism works a little bit more frequently than international terrorism. But they’re both very, very bad strategies that frequently blow back.)
Umm, do you mean al-qaeda (if you are referring to 9/11). Al-qaeda and the Taliban are different groups. Neither are particularly nice, but only one did 9/11.
In the context of 9/11, that seems like a strong statement to make.
The terrorists (let us agree on this label a priori) got everything they could ever wish for and then some.
Regular Americans in general lost freedoms of movement and communication. The whole political landscape shifted right. The US invaded and destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan and Syria got weaker than ever. The Saudis gained hugely in influence over the whole region.
Wahhabism is now influential in areas where they hardly existed before! They almost controlled Egypt for a while. And when the US retreated and gave controlling power back to the Taliban they showed the whole world that a needle pick in the belly of the beast was all that was necessary. That has given new courage to similar terrorist cells, a situation the rest of the world is still struggling with.
The whole world focused for almost two decades on their part of the world. Nobody can say that 9/11 wasn't an important catalyst for all that. And at a price that would not even cover catering had this been an organized intelligence operation. Terrorism can clearly and empirically be a very cost effective lever in ideological, political and religious struggle.
It's so incredibly sad to watch: for decades, tons of people made mostly rational (from their point of view) decisions, yet each step inevitably brought us closer and closer to the current situation. Add a few cultural, social, and personal pathological cases into the mix, and what you have is basically a speedrun to 9/11.
Note that I'm not justifying terror attacks, just saying they are a very predictable consequence of decades of policy-making.
How would the Mongols, the Russians, the Egyptian empires have solved the israeli/palestine conflict? Do you know where the terms zealots and sicario come from? Did the Romans solve these terror attacks by reconsidering their "catastrophically bad policies"?
It's interesting that you actually wrote down in this sentence the very explanation you say doesn't exist. It's pretty obvious: instituting an empire is the policy others will hate you for. The fact that you can't imagine this despite spelling out the facts yourself is curious.
Not being an empire is an option, too. That won't save you in all cases, especially if you're seen as a fallen empire, another empire's lackey due to alliances and dependencies, or your culture is simply incompatible with some other culture that happens to be frequently in contact with you. But it will reduce the likelihood of a convincing narrative - one that could lead people to hijack planes and fly them into buildings - emerging.
It's not a topic that can be fully discussed in HN comments, as there are many complexities involved, but "They hate us because we decided on a policy to be an empire" is not that far from the truth, I think.
By historical standard, over the last 10000 years prosperity, democracy and peace have hardly been the norm, don't you think? Empires have existed all over the world however. Perhaps we should accept what is a fact of life of human societies, and try to minimise its most egregious aspects, rather than wishfulling hoping for the profound change that will never materialise.
The pilots who flew planes into buildings 25 years ago were saudis, Saudi Arabia was never part of a western Empire. They trained in Afghanistan which was never part of a western empire (Alexander the Great does not count).
They were able to strike the American empire because, contrary to the common political discourse on the left, the American empire is a rather open and benevolent hegemon by historical standard, and internal dissent is not crushed or exterminated as it would have been were the Americans behaving as the Ottomans, the Romans, the Mongols, the Spanish, USSR etc...
I am not apologizing the American empire, I am not even american nor do I like the culture that spews out of the US, especially these days, but one has to put things into historical context if we are to understand the nature of terror attacks.
Agreed! From my own reading (not a specialist), for example, in Europe, there were only a handful of years (literally) between 3000 B.C. and ~1950 A.D. when there was actual peace on the continent. Wars, rebellions, coups, civil wars, uprisings - every single year for five thousand years there was bloodshed, the borders moved, cities perished, populations starved, and so on.
And yes, this happened both when an empire/global power existed and when none was around. And yes, the Pax Romana (and similar periods) did bring many benefits to the world. At the same time, though, all the empires always incited hatred among the groups under them: the Romans bloodily suppressed quite a few uprisings even during that "Golden Age" (which you know, since you mentioned "zealots" in a previous comment). They wouldn't need to do that were they not an empire, which is my point.
> The pilots who flew planes into buildings 25 years ago were saudis, Saudi Arabia was never part of a western Empire. They trained in Afghanistan which was never part of a western empire (Alexander the Great does not count).
The terrorists don't need to be "part of empire" to feel threatened by that empire. Putting soldiers on the ground, for any reason, half a world away, while demanding special treatment for the troops, assuming their country's jurisdiction naturally follows their citizens in other nations, and so on - just one of those is enough to be seen as an imperialist power by the locals. The USA did all of these and more throughout the world, but especially in the Middle East. They didn't have to act that way, but they did, as it's natural for empires. The violent backlash locally and terror attacks at home are just normal, expected reactions to an empire acting like one. It's also worth noting that the entire Middle East is a fallen, fractured Empire. I'm not sure how much that influenced things, but I can imagine it fueled some ambitions in countries like Saudi Arabia to build another Ottoman Empire, this time centered on Riyadh. (Just a guess - I'm not well-versed in post-Middle Age history of the Middle East.)
> They were able to strike the American empire because, contrary to the common political discourse on the left, the American empire is a rather open and benevolent hegemon by historical standard
Agreed. Though I'd say whether an empire is open and benevolent or strict and brutal doesn't influence the number of terrorist attacks. Yes, if you're benevolent, the hatred may be less prevalent - but then your security is weaker, so you can have the same number of attacks even with fewer "freedom fighters". The issue is being seen as an empire: as long as you can be cast as one, some people will hate you automatically, even if, all things considered, you're actually pretty tame and even beneficial to others.
> I am not apologizing the American empire, I am not even american nor do I like the culture that spews out of the US, especially these days, but one has to put things into historical context if we are to understand the nature of terror attacks.
If America is not attacked by terrorists because it is an empire and acts like one - then why? That's what I don't get in your argument. If the USA didn't maintain military presence across the region (ME), didn't wholeheartedly support the "Zionist regime" (which also acts like an ethnocentric empire - Aztecs come to mind as a comparison), didn't historically meddle in the region's politics by both carrot and a lot of stick, etc., would they be hated enough for people to suicide bomb them?
Apparently, 90% of the terror attacks happen in the context of local instability (a civil war, rebellion, uprising, coup, etc.). You really need something special for the foreign terrorists to be willing to travel half a world just to blow themselves up on your doorstep. If it's not the imperialist policies, then what is it? If I understand your argument correctly, it's all religious fanaticism? But then, why would those fanatics attack the US, instead of enjoying some jolly sectarian bloodshed locally, like they did for centuries? There are enough religions and sects in ME to fuel terror attacks for a few more millennia, I'd guess, and it's not like that infighting stopped completely. How come the US was added as another traditional target for "death to ..." calls? I don't think it would happen without America's heavy involvement there...
Yes, and what could be that something special?
Imperialism says you? Britain and France have been struck by terrorism yet they no longer have an empire. Ok, guilt by association could be a motive... But then why would Belgium and Germany be struck? oh, and Sweden too? And all these kidnapped christian girls in Nigeria? and in every case by Sunni-Muslim...
Maybe it's anti-imperialism, who knows... perhaps some middle eastern sunni muslims were really upset that Sweden ever had an empire, and decided that ramming a crowd with a truck was a good way to avenge the "oppression" perpetrated by Sweden 300 years ago.
That, or maybe you could adjust your worldview, and realise that religious fanatism has been a pretty strong motivator for atrocities throughout history, and even in such enlightened times as ours, there are still people who would conduct the most horrendous acts for their faith and the credibility it gives them within their group.
In all cases, the Chinese, who also suffered from such attacks (the perpetrators were of the same religion), found a "solution" that is much more aligned with imperialistic norms throughout history. They have not been struck since.
And no, be at rest, I am not for the establishment of a surveillance state, but pointing the wilful blindness in your reasoning.
But I do agree! I'm not trying to say that religion (and culture, more broadly) is not an enabling factor or even one of the important causes for terrorist attacks.
What I'm disputing is the assertion that religion is the sole cause, and the attacks would continue with the same intensity if the policies in the attacked countries were to change.
As I mentioned before, that wouldn't eliminate all the attacks: if your culture is fundamentally incompatible with some other culture, which also praises martyrdom, chances are you will get attacked by religious fanatics motivated by their beliefs. That's the case for Sweden. Germany and Britain sent troops to ME multiple times in the past 20 years alone, at the behest of USA, so they get both the religious fanatics and "freedom fighter" kinds of attacks.
Again, I'm not disputing that some cultures, faiths, and populations have a higher probability of resorting to terrorism. I'm not saying that GTFO of the ME would solve all terrorist attacks. However, I believe the imperialist policy is one of the reasons people try to blow other people up, and that dropping said policy could, in a few decades (!), result in the lower attack rate.
That's all; I'm not trying to say religion (particular kinds of it, especially) is not a factor. It most definitely is. As I mentioned, the sectarian bloodshed is very common and often takes the form of terror attacks. You will always get religious fanatics trying to kill others because they don't fit into their doctrine. However, the foreign policy does matter, and you can reduce the rate of attacks greatly by not antagonizing people who are not religious fanatics, but would still want to blow themselves up to "save their nation", to "reclaim sovereignty", to "destroy the occupiers", and so on.
So yeah: religion is, for sure, a risk factor. But so is foreign policy, and my argument is that the policy is the bigger factor and the one that is much easier to adjust. To get rid of religious-motivated terror attacks, you would need to become Iran (and that wouldn't work: you'd just get Christian terrorists!); to get rid of "freedom fighter" kind of attacks, you just need to stop forcing your way into countries half a world away.
Then why doesn't south America perform a lot of terrorist attacks? If that was the reason then you would see sub saharan africa perform way more terrorist attacks than the middle east.
No, the elephant in the room is religious zealots, they perform terrorist attacks, most other groups do not perform a lot of terrorism. A history of oppression just makes you happy the oppressors left, it doesn't make you a terrorist that go and try to make the oppressors come back like the middle east does.
I'm Australian and I'm all for peeling back and making transparent all the comings and goings of public officials (within reason) - they deserve a good return, a hefty return even, for dedicated public service .. and they deserve to know that there's a hammer waiting for any betrayal of public trust, shady financial dealings (while in office), etc.
As a "known in advance covenant" that's not altogether unreasonable, raises the bar for would be Trumpesque grifters, and allows for privacy for those not seeking access to public offices, trust, and cookie jars.
Or, say, because they want a judicial warrant to be sufficient for obtaining someone's information without their consent?
> Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order.
Huh? This sounds crazy.
Anyway, apparently this Peter Hummelgaard has said:
"I indisputably believe that surveillance creates an increased sense of security ... and given that the prerequisite for freedom is security, yes, I believe that more surveillance equates to more freedom"
so I think you will find it easier to understand these kinds of protest actions if you consider them in the context of privacy vs. surveillance more broadly conceived.
(source for quote https://mastodon.social/@chatcontrol/115314954743042414 -> https://www.dr.dk/lyd/special-radio/prompt/prompt-2025/egois...)
"It's not that complicated"... indeed?
Privacy was a thing long before encryption even existed. So were stalking, wiretapping, etc. That whole time, judicial warrants had always been legally and practically adequate for obtaining and reviewing evidence that was physically accessible. (And for arresting stalkers and wiretappers.)
Encryption changed all that. It effectively undermined the ability of warrants to do their job.
Regardless of how you feel about the above, surely you agree that none of that is factually incorrect, right? Plaintext + privacy were simultaneously a thing for a long time, right?
So, whatever you feel, doesn't it feel a little disingenuous to suggest that the two are necessarily tied together? And to smear someone as hypocritical because they believe in both? Did the guy ever advocate for exposing everyone's real-time location?
Look, I don't even know the guy. And I'm not even trying to defend anything here on its merits. I'm just trying to set the record straight as to what the facts and the logical implications are(n't). Do you(/him/etc.) want an honest debate? Where you can actually win with people coming to support your ideas on their merits? Or do you want to take the craziest logical leaps and lose all your potential supporters in the process?
Certainly not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
The Danish constitution also mentions privacy, in the form of paragraph 72 that stipulates that the confiscation and examination of letters and other papers; as well the interception of postal-, telegraph- and telephone communication cannot be done without a judicial order.
Those things were costly and didn’t scale very well. Which is why it was more tolerable.
Without encryption and with legally required backdoors the authorities can just “wiretap” everyone just in case they might commit a crime. That is what the Danish government wants to do by pushing ChatControl in the EU. There is absolutely nothing crazy about that and they are perfectly transparent about what they are doing. Most sensible people believe that that’s a too high cost.
It’s not the same as gps, but it’s similar. If you can decrypt someone’s communications, you can more easily determine their location.
What these weirdo hacktivists don't understand is that the voting public wants to live in a society.
I don't think this is a given. Just Stop Oil says that their tactics do make people hate them, but their research tells them that it still makes peoples opinions on the issues move in the direction that they want them to. Their position is that if they achieve what they want while gathering animosity towards their organisation, once achieved, they can disband.
Thier "research" might be full of yes men.
If they want to fix the climate crisis, they should engage with normal people and find effective ways for them to save money (e.g. like https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/ do) or pressure councils and such into providing better public transport (e.g. like https://bettertransport.org.uk/ do).
People don't consume oil because they intrinsicly like consuming oil. People use private cars that consume oil because nobody else gives a shit (especially not councils) about their needs to get from A to B on time and doesn't offer suitable public transport. People don't buy into mad schemes that require £20,000 upfront and might return about £200 a year in savings, just for ideological reasons. They need cheaper things that pay off sooner, like portable solar panels they can put out in the garden when it's sunny.
Probably the best thing they could do is tell all their other ecological activists to stop being NIMBYs and stop protesting against pylons, so we can get lovely clean renewable energy, generated by turbines in the North Sea, to all the places in Britain where it's needed, especially the south east of England.
It was first and foremost a decription based on observation, but I think it conveyed that he felt that the Overton window was moved by vorces in the middle, and forces at the extremes moved it in the other direction.
There is a distinction to be made of how strongly the opinion is held compared to how much the opinion differs to the median view.
I think there is a correlation at the extremes, but I think the Just Stop Oil approach is deliberately splitting those two, performing extreme actions to promote a view that is not terribly extreme.
This is consistent with the view of the Overton window that the extremes repel and the moderate attracts.
Compare that to a vegan who doesn't campaign, but silently judges every meat eater as a murderer. If their views were more public, it may drive people the other way.
(I don't know anything about her.)
I'd really like to see that research.
when they do it, its A-OKAY, but if he does even 1/10, its the worst catastrophy in the world.
Regardless, this is enormously dumb. If you want to search and arrest an activist who crosses the line, you make it as boring as possible.
> that same minister (Peter Hummelgaard) is one of the key forces behind anti-encryption here in Europe
I agree with you that he goes over the line, but only if these ministers are totally unrelated to the measures they are trying to impose on the population. If not, he just gives them a taste of their own medicine.
This is about as far from "over the line" as I can imagine.
Even if the text message was exactly the same, there are plenty of valid reasons why one might be prosecutable and the other might not be.
Some of us prefer not to give up on that though.
I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider.
I don't think they would reject that. In fact, you are arguing their point: It's the context that matters, not just the act. Without knowing the context it's not valid to presume a particular scenario.
Not sure how that's "obfuscation".
The underlying problem is that a LOT of public servants are very scared what will happen if the party who keeps getting threatened gets elected, which is a real possibility. So, they're using all sorts of underhanded tactics to try to prevent it. In a way, it's a fight about public servants trying to keep their job safe. It's political because they all owe their jobs to a particular coalition that's been in power for ages and ages.
Oh and it's a fight about muslim immigration and the influence of that in and on society. So ...
That's why it's obfuscation. You're leaving important things out.
The intent and context are obviously better for the one who's clearly sending the "threat" as a political statement against selective enforcement.
> I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider
... and you're willing to give the benefit of doubt to those with power here. You are aware you're making that implicit statement, right?
That is far from obvious.
In general i think that attempting to alter the course of justice via a threat is much worse than a simple threat. Any situation where officers of the court are afraid to impartially do their duties to coercion is a fundamental threat to society and should be dealt with harshly.
> ... and you're willing to give the benefit of doubt to those with power here.
I'm basing my view on the arguments presented in this thread.
So far what has been presented is that the prosecutor did something very normal that happens all the time for very reasonable reasons. Its possible that in this case it happened due to inappropriate reasons, idk, but so far nobody has even presented a theory for why the action was corrupt instead of normal.
In general i think it is the job of the person arguing that misconduct occured to present evidence that it actually happened. Otherwise things descend into witch hunts as it is very difficult to prove a negative.
Does that change anything?
Only taking action because you can change corrupt ways doesn’t actually change anything because the average person has no power to do so. And the proper channels are gummed up to not change anything.
What Lars does is possibly inform or change perspective of those unfamiliar with their nation/world-state.
I'm not sure about that. People on HN are generally well in the know, while laymen don't event understand the substance of the matter in question.
People on HN are generally well in the know
This pretty accurately describes lots of stuff going on here in Germany as well and well the state of most of our "liberal democracies".
But, yeah, depending on your threat matrix, you might want to consider hidden trail cams with their own cell service.
I think this is very irresponsible. What would happen if the owner was armed and harmed the police thinking that they were criminals?
A hefty prison sentence for illegal handling of firearms and attempted homicide would be my guess.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/1c0e24s/american_...
The entire scene is probably not meant as effective policing, but as punitive theater. This also explains why they disabled the cameras, as the theater was not intended for content reuse.
Given that, I'd assume they knew he wouldn't shoot them or do anything even remotely like that.
Sentences are not added up. So yes, trying to shot a police officer will definitely get you decent sentence -- it's not hefty by American standards.
Weapons are normal here too.
What are you going to do after they enter the house (if they aren't indeed the police and you trust they won't kill or rape your family)?
We don't have precedent in the way that common law countries do, and the judgements in actual cases point in slightly different directions-- in one case a court felt that the failure to fire a warning shot made it not self-defence, in another fighting people trying to get into an apartment with a knife was deemed acceptable.
Generally though, if someone is breaking into your apartment while you're there, possibly trying to get at you, there's no limit, as long as you're actually trying to defend yourself (so no executing someone who you've clearly disabled, etc.).
If people are breaking into your apartment and you fire a warning shot, then proceed to shoot the attackers, no one will complain.
This guy for example was convicted of murder because he got his gun out without even trying to contact the police directly or indirectly. So even if he pulled the trigger under reasonable circumstances (a know violent offender was trying to take his rifle) he was found guilty because he should not have gone for the gun without considering alternatives like locking the door or fleeing.
I can’t see him being anywhere near guaranteed to claim self defense even if he had fired a warning shot first.
https://svenskjakt.se/start/nyhet/skot-inkraktare-med-algstu...
Notice again the lack of warning shots. The courts really want you to do one.
They just violently entered his home in an effort to attack him, dressed in a way designed to intimidate. These cops were deliberately cosplaying as some sort of a hit squad, they obviously wanted him to believe that they were going to kill him.
It's not like the cops just accidentally went out dressed like that.
Yet they're dressed exactly like a hit squad in a Brazilian favela!
>Especially when they want to preserve evidence which might be quickly destroyed if the suspect sees them coming.
Somehow cops elsewhere manage this just fine in appropriate attire.
Naturally, getting raided is scary as fuck. And them being plain clothed certainly doesn't make it less so. But based on the part of the video which he chose to shared I don't see why one would suspect anyone other than the police. Had they been out to kill him it would have been easier to just go in blasting instead of yelling while using a battering ram.
Hit squads are truly exotic here. Plain clothes police raids are not, although the norm is for them to be uniformed. I have no idea on why they chose to be plain clothed instead of uniformed on this occasion, but I can't see why we would attribute it to "cosplaying as some sort of a hit squad". Another possibility, which I believe is somewhat common, is that they can take him away without making him look like a criminal in the eyes of his neighbors.
Where in Europe are you from? I get the impression that you are used to a very different kind of society.
I'd personally like to see the laws protecting this strengthened, to make sure that cops aren't charging unannounced into peoples' homes and then charging the homeowner with murder when they react with reasonable gun violence in self-defense.
In that case, how about the cops can just shoot anyone with a gun who's not a cop?
Should keep things pretty simple, and the majority of the population in the US would be a bunch safer. :D
This kind of pro-cop propaganda placing them above the law is disgusting.
Cops should go to prison for illegal raids. Some behaviour needs to be severely punished.
This kind of betrayal of trust is one of the most severe crimes one can commit against society, the punishments should be equally severe.
ECHR necessarily guarantees the right to shoot some intruders in some situations, but it's kind of impossible to know which situations those are except after the fact.
But you can't use it against someone for just entering your premises illegally. It needs to be a clear and present danger.
You base this on what? I know plenty of gun owners where I live, and most would pull open their safe the moment they hear something during the night. I'm willing to bet most gun safes are located in the bedroom.
Anyway, unless you actually have stabbed someone before you don't know whether you got what it takes until you're actually in a situation where you find out.
A guy tried to rob me, I fractured his skull with my iphone before I even realized what was going on. You don't just freeze when someone suddenly attacks you, you'll try to swing at them with whatever you have at hand.
At home? I might just have been cooking, or carving a sunday roast. Who knows? But if someone suddenly smashed through my door, I'm pretty sure that whatever object happens to be in my hand would be heading towards the intruder long before I've had time to think about what's going on.
https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/D...
That being said, if I were a police officer I wouldn't rule out the possibility.
Might as well talk about unicorns as we are imaging this scenario in Denmark.
This isn't limited to shotguns or bolt action rifles for hunting. You can own up to six handguns.
You do need to be licensed however, and given Andersen's history he probably wouldn't be permitted.
He describe himself as an anarcho capitalist so I guess, ideologically, it is government surveillance that he is concerned with and that the free market will sort out the rest.
While I don't doubt they have a way of getting permission to access that data, I don't think they will put in the effort unless you're a relally big fish.
This seems exactly backwards to what I'd expect, I wonder what the official rationale is.
What is good is that he is a wrench, that throws itself in the works repeatedly. This is a healthy thing to have.
On a second thought (addendum), ...
1) Publishing PII like phone number of a high profile person in your society is causing them harm since they obviously put effort into not having such out in the open. (e.g. I can find anyone's phone number in my country via leaks. No big deal... but I shouldn't publish such. I shouldn't possess such data either.)
2) SSN is a different category of PII. Publishing this of anyone is an invitation of harm, even more so of a high profile person in your society.
It is akin to inviting people to DDoS a website, or blocking them physically access to exit their house. That kind of thing. Except that on the internet, anyone can abuse this. Even people (including criminals) in foreign countries, residing in hazardous jurisdictions (e.g. Russia).
Either way, what's the point of publishing such information? When German activists published the fingerprint of a German minister, they were making a point. They got the fingerprint via a glass of wine, but the interesting point is that a fingerprint cannot be revoked. It isn't used to authenticate a password, but a user(name). It should therefore not be used as single factor.
Peter Hummelgaard on the other hand, can just fuck right off. Former head of the ministry of justice seriously argued that the mass surveillance initiatives he led were right because he "felt" it...
I see it as a morally valid approach. Politicians are well within their power to not be corrupt and value the US/bigcorp/oligarch x over the people they vowed to represent.
remigration, monkey comparisons, generally some awful stuff. yikes. Just focus on privacy, dude.
Umm, so was he arrested for doxing the prime minister? Is there more to the story than that?
As someone who cares about privacy, arresting people who dox other people seems like a good thing. Obviously i want that to apply to everyone not just the rich and famous, but still at the end of the day i have trouble objecting to someone getting arrested for doxing people.
No, i dont think it is.
> He's pointing out precisely that "doxing" the entire population of Denmark shouldn't be acceptable to her
Denmark is a democracy, that is a decision for the electroate to make during an election. In general we give governments rights and abilities that normal people do not have. Where the line should be is up to the voters to decide.
> and that she's literally not accepting herself being "doxxed."
Not really equivalent. I'm pretty sure the Danish survelience plans, whatever you think of them, intend to have some sort of controls against misuse. (Im not saying that makes them good or ok, just that they aren't equivalent to doxing people)
I fear for what our political system will look like when only those who have become completely numb to such threats remain. What kinds people are they, those who can live with hundreds of daily hate messages and death threats, doxing of oneself and family members, having to live with security guards and secret addresses? What are we losing by allowing this kind of "freedom of speech"?
If your morals consist of eye-for-an-eye retribution, then maybe his actions make sense. But I do not believe that that gives us a better society.
It’s still preferable to doing nothing when that politician is publicly declaring their support of indiscriminately violating inherent personal freedoms on an unlimited scale.
Do you really want armed and masked police to break down the doors of people who dox others, disable their cameras, and arrest them while refusing to tell them the charges? Because without these details this would have been a non-story.
It was introduced in 1968, when Denmark was a high-trust society. It was used as a sort of password and key for looking up your information. If you wanted to create a bank account, you told them your SSN. If you wanted to buy a car, you told them your SSN. If you had any contact with the authorities, you told them your SSN. And so on.
The usage has changed, but not that much. So today, when trust in Danish society is not as high, the system falls short. Identity theft. Privacy. Scamming. They have to be detected and stopped by other means.
The proper path forwards would be to radically change the system (or the society).
I think this is useful context for evaluating his judgment.
All too often people throw around the racist buzzword without ever actually providing evidence. It's as if we're expected to just blindly trust and follow that somebody is now excommunicated from modern society.
So, success?
He’s not doing anything for the cause he claims to fight for. He’s doesn’t want a right to privacy he wants to be allowed to continue to sell drugs “in private” from the government. And he thinks freedom of speech should cover his freedom to harass and threaten politicians which it doesn’t and shouldn’t.
Doesn't seem to be working.
You can’t just declare “I am an anti violence activist” then go out and beat up politicians and declare that the system has a problem with violence when you get arrested.
This is the equivalent of what he’s done. He claims to support privacy laws so he violated the privacy of someone who is currently protected by the PET (equivalent of FBI) due to safety concerns and he proudly proclaimed that he did so by stalking her children. He’s not a political activist he’s a drug dealer who’s hell bent on getting revenge on politicians because he just spent 8 months in jail after being convicted on counts of death threats harassment and illegal possession of arms and drugs.
By the metric of Denmark being the leading force being Chat Control, Palantir driven panopticon and worse.
Sorry, you made a silly typo that made you look bad. I fixed it.