Because this someone wants to know location of everyone in the country while his own location should be of course private and protected.

▲

dataflow 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I still don't understand what that has to do with encryption. Are these two separate policy proposals, one for GPS tracking and one for encryption, that this person is supporting?

▲

bondarchuk an hour ago | parent [-]

Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time. Collecting information on someone such as their location is of the same order.

▲

gpvos an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It may be of the same order, but it is a different thing. No one, not even techies like here on HN, are going to see his actions as valid.

	▲	bondarchuk 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		He has to use a different method because obviously he does not have a backdoor into the prime minister's phone. The fact that "obviously wrong" invasive methods have to be used (now) to imitate something that the prime minister want to apply to every citizen (except himself and his buddies) in the future can be seen as part of the point.

▲

dataflow 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Think about why do governments want to ban encryption? Because they want to know everything about you all the time.

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.

	▲	bondarchuk 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not that complicated. Minister wants to remove citizens privacy. Protester invades privacy of minister in response. On the one hand I agree that gps-tracking is not exactly the same as analyzing people's messages, on the other hand one can often infer whereabouts through messaging services indirectly or even directly such as when people share their gps location with one another (a feature that e.g. whatsapp has). 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...)

▲

defrost 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hmmm, in context he was(?) tracking a public ministers car.

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.