.jpg)
Six members of the Riksdag for the "liberal" pary, Folkpartiet, are apparently having second thoughts about the FRA Act.
In a phone survey by [the national television station] SVT News six center-right coalition members of the Riksdag said they may change their minds and side with the opposition on the FRA Act. 'This is a last resort strategy, to write a bill that annulls [the FRA Act]. We do not want to cause trouble for our own administration, but in this critical situation we may have to do something' says Camilla Lindberg, who is one of the six.
One of their beefs with the law is that it does not require probable cause before anyone's electronic communications can be wiretapped. It is good that these politicians are waking up, but the lack of probable cause stopper in the law was apparent long before it came to a vote in the Riksdag.
A lot of what these six are saying seems to be directly derived from the threat of political annihilation that the Folpartiet is facing now. Says Solveig Hellquist, one of the six:
No one has been able to convince me about the need for expanded wiretapping and I am therefore having difficulties accepting the ramifications that the law will have for fundamental rights and freedoms.
These ramifications were also well known before Hellquist and her parliamentary friends voted for the law. Again, it is good that second thoughts are kicking in, but the reason is political egoism rather than anything else. It is therefore difficult to believe that these six members of the Riksdag will go as far as to demand a termination of the FRA Act. That would bring about a major crisis for the Reinfeldt administration and the Folkpartiet would punish the six by removing them from the ballots in the next election. (Sweden's weird parliamentary system allows political parties, not the individual candidates, to decide who is running for what political office.) These six will not sacrifice their own political future for their principles; if that had been the case they would have voted against the FRA Act already in June.
At the same time, they know the party - which is barely big enough to make it over the minimum vote share threshold - faces annihilation in the next election. Voters will abandon the party to such an extent that they will be kicked out of the political limelight. So these six members of the Riksdag are trying to strike a compromise between the Reinfeldt cabinet and its parliamentary base, not in the interest of the people but in the interest of mutual political survival.
It is obvious that the Black Monday network and other opposition groups must continue their fight against the law so that its end can come about regardless of preserving the turfs of incumbent political interests.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
AN UPDATE FROM AN ANTI-FRA ACT ADVOCACY GROUP
Amanda Brihed, founder and president of the anti-FRA Act group Svart Mandag [Black Monday] is giving an update of the latest developments on the group's website. It is an important update, since Brihed is in the frontline of the opposition to the FRA Act.
Over the past month I have worked very hard to build the movement that goes by the name Svart Mandag. We are thousands of people who are working today to reclaim Sweden's position internationally as a democratic, free nation with great respect for individual integrity. It has gone better than expected and more and more media outlets are siding with us, which will lead to further scrutiny [of the FRA Act and its consequences]. More and more influential politicians and other public figures have of late come out against the wiretapping law.
Amanda Brihed is encouraged in particular by the fact that the Green Party and the Social Democrats have been so openly critical of the law. While her optimism is well founded when it comes to the Green Party it is important to remember that the Social Democrats started this whole process already in 1995. The first draft of the law was written by the Social Democrat minister of justice years before the center-right coalition took over.
This does not take away anything from what Brihed is writing - on the contrary, her optimism can potentially inspire a great deal of pressure on the Social Democrats if they win the 2010 election. Their intent is to make marginal adjustments of the law; what Brihed is hinting is that they might be persuaded to abolish it altogether. That will take a great deal of patience, determination and effort on behalf of groups like Svart Mandag. It is possible, but no one should underestimate the slickness and tactical skills of the Social Democrats. They could easily bury the issue in a parliamentary commission or make nominal changes while keeping the content.
Brihed is doing a formidable job in rallying opposition against the FRA Act. Hopefully, she will not be dissuaded by political game playing.
Over the past month I have worked very hard to build the movement that goes by the name Svart Mandag. We are thousands of people who are working today to reclaim Sweden's position internationally as a democratic, free nation with great respect for individual integrity. It has gone better than expected and more and more media outlets are siding with us, which will lead to further scrutiny [of the FRA Act and its consequences]. More and more influential politicians and other public figures have of late come out against the wiretapping law.
Amanda Brihed is encouraged in particular by the fact that the Green Party and the Social Democrats have been so openly critical of the law. While her optimism is well founded when it comes to the Green Party it is important to remember that the Social Democrats started this whole process already in 1995. The first draft of the law was written by the Social Democrat minister of justice years before the center-right coalition took over.
This does not take away anything from what Brihed is writing - on the contrary, her optimism can potentially inspire a great deal of pressure on the Social Democrats if they win the 2010 election. Their intent is to make marginal adjustments of the law; what Brihed is hinting is that they might be persuaded to abolish it altogether. That will take a great deal of patience, determination and effort on behalf of groups like Svart Mandag. It is possible, but no one should underestimate the slickness and tactical skills of the Social Democrats. They could easily bury the issue in a parliamentary commission or make nominal changes while keeping the content.
Brihed is doing a formidable job in rallying opposition against the FRA Act. Hopefully, she will not be dissuaded by political game playing.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
FRA ACT OPPOSITION MUST NOT LOSE FOCUS
One of Sweden's largest newspapers, Expressen, published a remarkable op-ed on Sunday. It was written by Stig Bergling, a man who committed high treason against Sweden as a spy for the Soviet Union. For his atrocities against his own country Bergling was given the rank of colonel in KGB - a rank he held while climbing to prominent positions within the Swedish army.
To publish an op-ed by him is to exercise strikingly poor judgment. The only excuse is that Expressen keeps the debate over the FRA Act alive. Today they publish another op-ed, this time by two graduate students from the University of Gothenburg. Unfortunately, their arguments do not render a whole lot of credibility to the opposition to the FRA Act.
It is in a way both frightening and very fortunate that Stig Bergling comes out in the public debate and presents the good old Cold War argument [in favor of the FRA Act]. It is frightening because you could expect that we have learned how an arms race and paranoid international relations produced everything from weapons of mass destruction to terror groups who flourished in, e.g., Afghanistan in the ruins of the showdowns between the superpowers.
Already here the two grad students set the tone for what is to come: a long rant about how we should all just be able to get along. They are using the FRA Act as a vehicle to market their ideas; they are not out to defend individual freedom.
But it is also good that we, through Bergling's arguments, can expose the non-democratic mehcanisms that pave the way for a militaristic aspect of the [FRA] wiretapping [program]. ... Is it even conceivable to have a military defense and intelligence service with democratic oversight, or do we simply have to accept that those are none of the politicians' or the general public's business? From Bergling's viewpoint ... it seems as though strategic arms race thinking supersedes a broader discussion about people's rights and freedoms, as well as [analysis of] the social utility of building a military in the event of war.
Then they go on to make fun of the fact that military facilities, built in the 1950s, were equipped to survive a nuclear attack. A rather cheap point that reveals their true intent: a general critique of armed forces and armed conflict. There is nothing wrong in that, but the FRA Act hardly ties in to this story, especially since Sweden has almost dismantled its entire military over the past 20 years.
It is unfortunate that the FRA Act cause is being hi-jacked in this way by people who want to use it for their own gain, not to gain ground for the cause.
To publish an op-ed by him is to exercise strikingly poor judgment. The only excuse is that Expressen keeps the debate over the FRA Act alive. Today they publish another op-ed, this time by two graduate students from the University of Gothenburg. Unfortunately, their arguments do not render a whole lot of credibility to the opposition to the FRA Act.
It is in a way both frightening and very fortunate that Stig Bergling comes out in the public debate and presents the good old Cold War argument [in favor of the FRA Act]. It is frightening because you could expect that we have learned how an arms race and paranoid international relations produced everything from weapons of mass destruction to terror groups who flourished in, e.g., Afghanistan in the ruins of the showdowns between the superpowers.
Already here the two grad students set the tone for what is to come: a long rant about how we should all just be able to get along. They are using the FRA Act as a vehicle to market their ideas; they are not out to defend individual freedom.
But it is also good that we, through Bergling's arguments, can expose the non-democratic mehcanisms that pave the way for a militaristic aspect of the [FRA] wiretapping [program]. ... Is it even conceivable to have a military defense and intelligence service with democratic oversight, or do we simply have to accept that those are none of the politicians' or the general public's business? From Bergling's viewpoint ... it seems as though strategic arms race thinking supersedes a broader discussion about people's rights and freedoms, as well as [analysis of] the social utility of building a military in the event of war.
Then they go on to make fun of the fact that military facilities, built in the 1950s, were equipped to survive a nuclear attack. A rather cheap point that reveals their true intent: a general critique of armed forces and armed conflict. There is nothing wrong in that, but the FRA Act hardly ties in to this story, especially since Sweden has almost dismantled its entire military over the past 20 years.
It is unfortunate that the FRA Act cause is being hi-jacked in this way by people who want to use it for their own gain, not to gain ground for the cause.
Monday, July 14, 2008
PARTY EGOISM BEHIND CRITIQUE OF FRA ACT
Influential members of the small "liberal" party Folkpartiet have opined in the daily Dagens Nyheter with an appeal to the Reinfeldt administration to reconsider the FRA Act.
The fundamental problem with the FRA Act is that even those who are not suspects of any crime will have their phone calls, e-mails and SMS messages analyzed by a government agency whose operations are beyond public scrutiny. Thereby [the FRA Act] is in violation of fundamental liberal values.
It might be worth noticing that "liberal" in this context refers to the traditional European definition of the word. This definition is closer to American moderate conservatism than American liberalism.
The fierce debate over the late spring and the summer about the FRA Act is unique. Many citizens have become involved and expressed concern. In a very short period of time an entirely new grassroots movement has formed, in support of individual freedom.
This is a slight exaggeration. Sweden is already a country with very little room for individual freedom. What the FRA Act has done in this respect is, perhaps, to inspire an interest in the notion of individual freedom, not much more. That is not bad, but it is not huge either.
We are appealing to the administration to take a step back and open for a new discussion with no pretext. We must, of course, protect ourselves against terrorism and military threats, but the infringements on people's integrity that come with the law are unbecoming of a modern nation of laws.
This is good, of course, especially since the list of people behind this op-ed include one former prime minister and two other former cabinet members. But the fact that this op-ed did not appear in the news before the Riksdag passed the FRA Act reveals the true purpose behind it. Their concern is not the integrity of the individual Swede - then they would have been against the law from the get-go. Instead, this is a reaction to how the general public has responded to the FRA Act. The liberal party Folkpartiet is one of the smallest in Swedish politics and is facing extinction between two increasingly similar and institutionalized big parties - the social democrats and the Moderate party. They fear that they might be the first victims if voters remember the FRA Act when they go to the ballot boxes in 2010.
While a good op-ed in itself, this piece is too obviously a political hack job to pass for serious reconsideration of the law. The Folkpartiet does not deserve support after the leaders of its parliament group bullied them into voting for the bill (with two notable exceptions).
The fundamental problem with the FRA Act is that even those who are not suspects of any crime will have their phone calls, e-mails and SMS messages analyzed by a government agency whose operations are beyond public scrutiny. Thereby [the FRA Act] is in violation of fundamental liberal values.
It might be worth noticing that "liberal" in this context refers to the traditional European definition of the word. This definition is closer to American moderate conservatism than American liberalism.
The fierce debate over the late spring and the summer about the FRA Act is unique. Many citizens have become involved and expressed concern. In a very short period of time an entirely new grassroots movement has formed, in support of individual freedom.
This is a slight exaggeration. Sweden is already a country with very little room for individual freedom. What the FRA Act has done in this respect is, perhaps, to inspire an interest in the notion of individual freedom, not much more. That is not bad, but it is not huge either.
We are appealing to the administration to take a step back and open for a new discussion with no pretext. We must, of course, protect ourselves against terrorism and military threats, but the infringements on people's integrity that come with the law are unbecoming of a modern nation of laws.
This is good, of course, especially since the list of people behind this op-ed include one former prime minister and two other former cabinet members. But the fact that this op-ed did not appear in the news before the Riksdag passed the FRA Act reveals the true purpose behind it. Their concern is not the integrity of the individual Swede - then they would have been against the law from the get-go. Instead, this is a reaction to how the general public has responded to the FRA Act. The liberal party Folkpartiet is one of the smallest in Swedish politics and is facing extinction between two increasingly similar and institutionalized big parties - the social democrats and the Moderate party. They fear that they might be the first victims if voters remember the FRA Act when they go to the ballot boxes in 2010.
While a good op-ed in itself, this piece is too obviously a political hack job to pass for serious reconsideration of the law. The Folkpartiet does not deserve support after the leaders of its parliament group bullied them into voting for the bill (with two notable exceptions).
Saturday, July 12, 2008
WHAT WOULD HITLER HAVE DONE WITH THE FRA ACT?
The United States of America is a nation of laws, not of people. This means that nobody stands above the law. While in practice many people can bend and twist the legal process, ultimately the American legal system keeps tabs on everyone. The ultimate example of this is when the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the President of the United States (as it recently did regarding the rights of the prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Marine Corps base).
Sweden, on the other hand, is a nation of political parties. The moral foundations of governance are not manifested in the country's constitution. They are instead manifested in the way that the legislature - and therefore the prime minister and his cabinet - govern the country. The constitution does not rein in government powers, but provides instead a set of procedural rules as to how the legislature shall pass laws. There are no restrictions on what laws can and cannot be passed. More importantly, Sweden lacks a constitutional supreme court, leaving the interpretation of the constitution in the hands of the legislature.
This is why the FRA Act could pass the legislature with such convenience. From hereon any entity that would try it within Sweden would only issue a non-compliance opinion. It would have to go to the EU court system before Sweden's government could face any legal sanctions if it defied a court order.
When a legislature is given such uninhibited powers the potentials are frightening. The FRA Act is ostensibly to be used to spy on Russia's foreign telecommunications and to monitor terrorists in Afghanistan. If even one of these explanations were true the law would be obsolete the day Russia redirects its telecommunications away from Sweden (already about to happen) and there are no longer any Swedish military aircraft flying missions in Afghanistan.
The Swedish prime minister and his cabinet knew this, of course, when they strongarmed the Riksdag in to passing the FRA Act. The reason for wanting the law is therefore of a much more lasting nature. A highly plausible reason is, of course, that they want to be able to control political extremists at home. In doing so they need to exercise discretion and due diligence in who they want to spy on.
This is where things get dicey. Because the Swedish government can operate uninhibitedly it can also use its powers uninhibitedly. So long as the government has good intentions - which, by a stretch, we might say that the Reinfeldt administration has - these powers are used prudently and with a fair amount of responsibility. However, once another administration takes over, or the incumbent "good" administration is corrupted, the unrestricted powers easily and quickly become evil instruments of totalitarianism.
We have seen all too many examples of totalitarian governments who rise to power through benevolent but weak constitutional structures. The classic example is Adolf Hitler. Swedes tend to believe that they are forever shielded against such threats. Especially Swedish politicians tend to believe that the future cannot hold any new Hitlers. The problem is that it can. The saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" is as true as "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction". When people stand above the constitution, the fate of freedom lies in the hands of fallable men.
A totalitarian leader in Sweden would be well served by the FRA surveillance system. He would quickly be able to identify and shut down those who oppose him. If there were no FRA surveillance system, he would have to build it first. If the FRA Act could be tried in a constitutional court, the totalitarian leader would be halted before he could put his evil plans to work. Neither is possible in Sweden.
This aspect of the FRA Act has not been brought up in the domestic debate in Sweden, which does not bode well. One can only hope that the sustained resistance to the FRA Act among the public will grow strong enough to also handle the upcoming constitutional reforms. With the FRA Act in place Sweden is in even more dire need of strong constitutional restrictions on government powers.
Sweden, on the other hand, is a nation of political parties. The moral foundations of governance are not manifested in the country's constitution. They are instead manifested in the way that the legislature - and therefore the prime minister and his cabinet - govern the country. The constitution does not rein in government powers, but provides instead a set of procedural rules as to how the legislature shall pass laws. There are no restrictions on what laws can and cannot be passed. More importantly, Sweden lacks a constitutional supreme court, leaving the interpretation of the constitution in the hands of the legislature.
This is why the FRA Act could pass the legislature with such convenience. From hereon any entity that would try it within Sweden would only issue a non-compliance opinion. It would have to go to the EU court system before Sweden's government could face any legal sanctions if it defied a court order.
When a legislature is given such uninhibited powers the potentials are frightening. The FRA Act is ostensibly to be used to spy on Russia's foreign telecommunications and to monitor terrorists in Afghanistan. If even one of these explanations were true the law would be obsolete the day Russia redirects its telecommunications away from Sweden (already about to happen) and there are no longer any Swedish military aircraft flying missions in Afghanistan.
The Swedish prime minister and his cabinet knew this, of course, when they strongarmed the Riksdag in to passing the FRA Act. The reason for wanting the law is therefore of a much more lasting nature. A highly plausible reason is, of course, that they want to be able to control political extremists at home. In doing so they need to exercise discretion and due diligence in who they want to spy on.
This is where things get dicey. Because the Swedish government can operate uninhibitedly it can also use its powers uninhibitedly. So long as the government has good intentions - which, by a stretch, we might say that the Reinfeldt administration has - these powers are used prudently and with a fair amount of responsibility. However, once another administration takes over, or the incumbent "good" administration is corrupted, the unrestricted powers easily and quickly become evil instruments of totalitarianism.
We have seen all too many examples of totalitarian governments who rise to power through benevolent but weak constitutional structures. The classic example is Adolf Hitler. Swedes tend to believe that they are forever shielded against such threats. Especially Swedish politicians tend to believe that the future cannot hold any new Hitlers. The problem is that it can. The saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" is as true as "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction". When people stand above the constitution, the fate of freedom lies in the hands of fallable men.
A totalitarian leader in Sweden would be well served by the FRA surveillance system. He would quickly be able to identify and shut down those who oppose him. If there were no FRA surveillance system, he would have to build it first. If the FRA Act could be tried in a constitutional court, the totalitarian leader would be halted before he could put his evil plans to work. Neither is possible in Sweden.
This aspect of the FRA Act has not been brought up in the domestic debate in Sweden, which does not bode well. One can only hope that the sustained resistance to the FRA Act among the public will grow strong enough to also handle the upcoming constitutional reforms. With the FRA Act in place Sweden is in even more dire need of strong constitutional restrictions on government powers.
Friday, July 11, 2008
SWEDISH POLITICIANS PLAYING DODGEBALL
There is no doubt that the Swedish political elite was taken completely aback by the public's reaction to the FRA Act. During the traditional "politics week" on the island of Gotland, that same elite gathered together with public action committees and other grassroots movements to talk politics. One of the hottest topics was, of course, the FRA Act. The dialy Dagens Nyheter reports about a public hearing on the FRA Act.
'The FRA has absolutely no intention whatsoever to control Swedish electronic communication and for that purpose there are various technical means to filter it out', said Anders Wik, former chief of FRA. 'It is the access to information that matters, not what technical filters there are' said Anna Pettersson from the grassroots organization StoppaFRAlagen.nu [Stop The FRA Act].
It might be worth pointing out already here that there is very little purpose behind having a former bureaucrat with no political position discuss a law. He will always defend the bureaucracy against criticism regarding the law that guides the bureaucracy's operations.
One former politician participated, namely the former defense minister in the Reinfeldt cabinet, Mikael Odenberg:
On the panel was among others Mikael Odenberg, who, when he was defense minister for the Moderate party, inherited the [FRA Act] issue from the preceding socialist administration and who also presented the first FRA Act bill. ... 'Without legislation that is neutral with regard to [wiretapping] technology we might just as well close the FRA', said Mikael Odenberg.
The implication of Odenberg's argument is of course that the Swedish military intelligence should have the right to open every letter sent by snailmail without court order or any suspicion of crime. Nobody has proposed such a law. Why...?
By trying to stonewall the opinions of the general public on the FRA Act, Sweden's political elite is only creating more problems for itself in the future. The greatest concern at this point is the upcoming re-write of the constitution. The best attitude for people to take there is to ask their politicians to prove their good intentions - and not just take their word for it - before they renew their trust in them. This is difficult to do in Sweden where the political parties effectively shield the legislative power from the people's influence, but there are still ways to do this. The public outcry over the FRA Act is in itself a good example.
'The FRA has absolutely no intention whatsoever to control Swedish electronic communication and for that purpose there are various technical means to filter it out', said Anders Wik, former chief of FRA. 'It is the access to information that matters, not what technical filters there are' said Anna Pettersson from the grassroots organization StoppaFRAlagen.nu [Stop The FRA Act].
It might be worth pointing out already here that there is very little purpose behind having a former bureaucrat with no political position discuss a law. He will always defend the bureaucracy against criticism regarding the law that guides the bureaucracy's operations.
One former politician participated, namely the former defense minister in the Reinfeldt cabinet, Mikael Odenberg:
On the panel was among others Mikael Odenberg, who, when he was defense minister for the Moderate party, inherited the [FRA Act] issue from the preceding socialist administration and who also presented the first FRA Act bill. ... 'Without legislation that is neutral with regard to [wiretapping] technology we might just as well close the FRA', said Mikael Odenberg.
The implication of Odenberg's argument is of course that the Swedish military intelligence should have the right to open every letter sent by snailmail without court order or any suspicion of crime. Nobody has proposed such a law. Why...?
By trying to stonewall the opinions of the general public on the FRA Act, Sweden's political elite is only creating more problems for itself in the future. The greatest concern at this point is the upcoming re-write of the constitution. The best attitude for people to take there is to ask their politicians to prove their good intentions - and not just take their word for it - before they renew their trust in them. This is difficult to do in Sweden where the political parties effectively shield the legislative power from the people's influence, but there are still ways to do this. The public outcry over the FRA Act is in itself a good example.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
...AND THEN THERE WERE MORE LIES...
A group of managers from the information technology industry are concerned that the FRA Act is going to discourage corporations from investing in Sweden given that all their activities will be wiretapped automatically by the government.
Sweden has, for a long time, earned a good reputation as an open and growth-oriented nation. This has contributed to making our country a desirable location for living and doing business. But the new FRA Act has raised concerns among many people and the way the government has responded to the reactions to the law is hardly reassuring. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt talks about chilling and sees no reason for concern. However, there are good reasons to be concerned about what the FRA Act will lead to. Not just with regard to the consequences for the individual privacy of Swedish citizens, but at least as much pertaining to the consequences for an entire industry [which] put jeopardize Sweden's strong reputation as [offering] a high-skilled work force and good climate for information technology businesses. Swedish corporations are active in an increasingly globalized world and sell a larger and larger share of their services on the global market. Therefore, in order not to deteriorate Sweden's ability to compete [for those businesses] it is important to avoid special legislation in Sweden.
The FRA Act is a clear case of such special, unique legislation, they continue. Businesses and individuals in neighboring countries whose electronic communications run through Sweden (Finland and Norway more so than Russia) are concerned that the Swedish authorities will spill the beans on what they intercept from those countries. The consequence, they say, may be...
...that foreign telecom customers avoid Sweden and Swedish corporations for their communications needs. One example is TeliaSonera [the Swedish-Finnish telecom company] which, upon request from its Finnish customers have moved its internet and e-mail servers out of Sweden. Another example is Tre which is considering solutions that exclude Sweden in order to adhere to concerns from their Danish customers. A third example is the successful Swedish e-mail distributor Momail which is seriously considering moving its business from Sweden as a result of the law. The consequence will be lost jobs and investments for Sweden.
The FRA Act also incurs considerable costs on the Swedish telecom industry:
The operators shall according to the FRA Act cover all fixed and variable costs for sending all communications to FRA's so called 'conjunction nodes'.
It gets better:
The government wrote in its bill for the FRA Act that the effects for the industry is cost neutrality, by which they mean that everyone is hit by the costs. This is not correct. The [Swedish] telecom industry faces very strong competition internationally as well as nationally and now Swedish telecom companies are forced to carry costs that their European counterparts do not have to face.
The relatively large portion of fixed cost is also a disadvantage to smaller businesses.
There are also plenty of signs that Sweden is being questioned by information technology businesses:
Foreign corporations are [already] balking at future commitments to Sweden, and important businesses in telecom and data storage have to cope with weaker appeal on the international market; even Swedish IT corporations are considering a reduction of their operations within Sweden. Google is considering ceasing or shrinking its operations on the Swedish market.
Sweden's defense minister, Sten Tolgfors, responds to this:
Sten Tolgfors notes that the IT corporations that the managers are referring to, already have operations in countries that conduct wiretapping. The difference is that Sweden discusses the issue openly and passes laws that clearly regulate the eacesdropping, unlike, e.g., the U.S., China and a number of European countries, such as Germany and Britain.
It might be worth pointing out that Google has had numerous run-ins with the Chinese authorities and that the overall process in China is moving the country toward increased openness (albeit slowly). The U.S. eavesdropping program he is referring to was shut down by Congress in January when it automatically expired. It was also a program that specifically targeted persons suspected of contacts with foreign terrorists - it was not a blanket wiretapping program (which would violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). Furthermore, a wiretapping program in Britain, more restrictive than the FRA Act, was recently declared in violation of Europe's human rights declaration.
Corporations cannot, as is being said, move in order to avoid wiretapping, as that is being done in other countries.
The difference is that in other countries the wiretapping is subject to "probable cause" restrictions and the citizens (as in the U.S.) have the opportunity to try the laws in an independent judiciary, ultimately a supreme constitutional court. None of this is the case in Sweden.
More lies from the Reinfeldt administration, in other words. Mr. Reinfeldt: once again, you're in a hole - it's time to quit digging!
Sweden has, for a long time, earned a good reputation as an open and growth-oriented nation. This has contributed to making our country a desirable location for living and doing business. But the new FRA Act has raised concerns among many people and the way the government has responded to the reactions to the law is hardly reassuring. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt talks about chilling and sees no reason for concern. However, there are good reasons to be concerned about what the FRA Act will lead to. Not just with regard to the consequences for the individual privacy of Swedish citizens, but at least as much pertaining to the consequences for an entire industry [which] put jeopardize Sweden's strong reputation as [offering] a high-skilled work force and good climate for information technology businesses. Swedish corporations are active in an increasingly globalized world and sell a larger and larger share of their services on the global market. Therefore, in order not to deteriorate Sweden's ability to compete [for those businesses] it is important to avoid special legislation in Sweden.
The FRA Act is a clear case of such special, unique legislation, they continue. Businesses and individuals in neighboring countries whose electronic communications run through Sweden (Finland and Norway more so than Russia) are concerned that the Swedish authorities will spill the beans on what they intercept from those countries. The consequence, they say, may be...
...that foreign telecom customers avoid Sweden and Swedish corporations for their communications needs. One example is TeliaSonera [the Swedish-Finnish telecom company] which, upon request from its Finnish customers have moved its internet and e-mail servers out of Sweden. Another example is Tre which is considering solutions that exclude Sweden in order to adhere to concerns from their Danish customers. A third example is the successful Swedish e-mail distributor Momail which is seriously considering moving its business from Sweden as a result of the law. The consequence will be lost jobs and investments for Sweden.
The FRA Act also incurs considerable costs on the Swedish telecom industry:
The operators shall according to the FRA Act cover all fixed and variable costs for sending all communications to FRA's so called 'conjunction nodes'.
It gets better:
The government wrote in its bill for the FRA Act that the effects for the industry is cost neutrality, by which they mean that everyone is hit by the costs. This is not correct. The [Swedish] telecom industry faces very strong competition internationally as well as nationally and now Swedish telecom companies are forced to carry costs that their European counterparts do not have to face.
The relatively large portion of fixed cost is also a disadvantage to smaller businesses.
There are also plenty of signs that Sweden is being questioned by information technology businesses:
Foreign corporations are [already] balking at future commitments to Sweden, and important businesses in telecom and data storage have to cope with weaker appeal on the international market; even Swedish IT corporations are considering a reduction of their operations within Sweden. Google is considering ceasing or shrinking its operations on the Swedish market.
Sweden's defense minister, Sten Tolgfors, responds to this:
Sten Tolgfors notes that the IT corporations that the managers are referring to, already have operations in countries that conduct wiretapping. The difference is that Sweden discusses the issue openly and passes laws that clearly regulate the eacesdropping, unlike, e.g., the U.S., China and a number of European countries, such as Germany and Britain.
It might be worth pointing out that Google has had numerous run-ins with the Chinese authorities and that the overall process in China is moving the country toward increased openness (albeit slowly). The U.S. eavesdropping program he is referring to was shut down by Congress in January when it automatically expired. It was also a program that specifically targeted persons suspected of contacts with foreign terrorists - it was not a blanket wiretapping program (which would violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). Furthermore, a wiretapping program in Britain, more restrictive than the FRA Act, was recently declared in violation of Europe's human rights declaration.
Corporations cannot, as is being said, move in order to avoid wiretapping, as that is being done in other countries.
The difference is that in other countries the wiretapping is subject to "probable cause" restrictions and the citizens (as in the U.S.) have the opportunity to try the laws in an independent judiciary, ultimately a supreme constitutional court. None of this is the case in Sweden.
More lies from the Reinfeldt administration, in other words. Mr. Reinfeldt: once again, you're in a hole - it's time to quit digging!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
MORE SMOKE SCREENS ON THE FRA ACT
The other day Sweden's commander in chief tried to convince the Swedish public that the blanket wiretapping program, a.k.a., the FRA Act, is necessary to prevent Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan from putting a rocket-propelled grenade in a Swedish airplane flying missions in Afghanistan. This explanation, which came close to the absolute freezing point of the human intellect, is now surpassed by an even more far-fetched attempt at blowing smoke screens in the eyes of the Swedes:
The purpose behind the FRA Act is to eavesdrop on Russia [according to] numerous sources with connections to Swedish intelligence services. 'The main reason behind the law is that the government, the military and other government agencies need intelligence about Russia', according to a person [with intelligence connections]. ... 'Our location means that some 80 percent of Russia's contacts with large parts of the world run on cables through Sweden. This is the main point in this whole thing' ... according to a source with good insight into intelligence operations ... .
And by now the Russians know about the FRA wiretap program and are taking precautionary measures. Instead of running their communications on cables that detour through Sweden - whose geographic position is far from as central as this newspaper purports - they will run them on cables through Poland or Hungary. Not to mention that their contacts with China, India and North America can run on cables that are so far from Sweden that not even the FRA can reach them.
Each new excuse that the Reinfeldt administration is coming up with makes them look more and more pathetic. At the very least, they ought to adhere to the good old principle: if you're in a hole, quit digging.
The purpose behind the FRA Act is to eavesdrop on Russia [according to] numerous sources with connections to Swedish intelligence services. 'The main reason behind the law is that the government, the military and other government agencies need intelligence about Russia', according to a person [with intelligence connections]. ... 'Our location means that some 80 percent of Russia's contacts with large parts of the world run on cables through Sweden. This is the main point in this whole thing' ... according to a source with good insight into intelligence operations ... .
And by now the Russians know about the FRA wiretap program and are taking precautionary measures. Instead of running their communications on cables that detour through Sweden - whose geographic position is far from as central as this newspaper purports - they will run them on cables through Poland or Hungary. Not to mention that their contacts with China, India and North America can run on cables that are so far from Sweden that not even the FRA can reach them.
Each new excuse that the Reinfeldt administration is coming up with makes them look more and more pathetic. At the very least, they ought to adhere to the good old principle: if you're in a hole, quit digging.
Monday, July 7, 2008
REINFELDT BULLIED FRA ACT THROUGH RIKSDAG FOR A SINISTER REASON
As this blog has pointed out since the FRA Act was passed, we should expect more bad news from Sweden regarding individual privacy and freedom. This is now confirmed by Maud Olofsson, the chairwoman of the Center Party, one of the four in the governing center-right coalition:
To the critics [of the FRA Act] I want to say - it is good that you held us to high standards. During the debate the center-right coalition listened to you. ... Ahead of us are many difficult decisions. [They pertain to] public surveillance cameras, credit cards, employer control [over employees] and the PKU database. For those we will need for all with good intentions to come together.
In other words, one of Sweden's most prominent politicians and minister of industry and trade in the Reinfeldt administration, says that if you think the FRA Act was "it", then you have another thing coming. As this blog recently noted, it will be a cakewalk to get almost anything through the Riksdag after this, including a pending constitutional overhaul that should make democratically minded legislators crinch.
This way, the FRA Act served a very cynical purpose: it tore down the democratic society's defense against all kinds of authoritarian legislation.
To the critics [of the FRA Act] I want to say - it is good that you held us to high standards. During the debate the center-right coalition listened to you. ... Ahead of us are many difficult decisions. [They pertain to] public surveillance cameras, credit cards, employer control [over employees] and the PKU database. For those we will need for all with good intentions to come together.
In other words, one of Sweden's most prominent politicians and minister of industry and trade in the Reinfeldt administration, says that if you think the FRA Act was "it", then you have another thing coming. As this blog recently noted, it will be a cakewalk to get almost anything through the Riksdag after this, including a pending constitutional overhaul that should make democratically minded legislators crinch.
This way, the FRA Act served a very cynical purpose: it tore down the democratic society's defense against all kinds of authoritarian legislation.
PATHETIC LIES ABOUT THE FRA ACT
In a strange twist to the FRA Act aftermath, Sweden's highest military commander, Hakan Syren, suggests that the law helps him and his military commanders predict whether there is a threat to Swedish military cargo airplanes flying missions in Afghanistan. Specifically, General Syren thinks that the FRA wiretapping program in Sweden, directed against Swedes, will help him get to know if anyone is planning to shoot down a Swedish plane with a "missile" in Afghanistan.
For the first time Commander in Chief Hakan Syren comments on the controversial FRA Act. But Syren was careful when he made his remarks on the events around the law [as he appeared on the TV news] on Monday morning. The debate has taken a somewhat unfortunate direction and gotten lost, there is a conflict of interests where on the one hand we need defense intelligence and on the other hand [we want] individual privacy. It has become such a black-and-white issue that we cannot find the answer in one camp, but we need some kind of compromise.
The only compromise is of course one where, as in the USA Patriot Act, there is a court order before any kind of wiretapping can be allowed - meaning that the police (not the military intelligence) has to have probable cause before they even begin to listen in to what any particular Swedish citizen or resident is up to.
Right this moment Swedish [military cargo aircraft] are flying missions in Afghanistan and in order to feel confident doing so I need to know what may happen there in the form of missiles and such things.
This is an authentic translation of what he is saying. He needs to blanket wiretap every phone, fax, e-mail and internet account in Sweden in order to know whether or not some terrorist in Afghanistan is going to try to shoot down a Swedish airplane - in Afghanistan.
It is highly unlikely that a Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan, with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher on his back, would bother to send an e-mail to Sweden before he tried to shoot down a Swedish aircraft in Afghanistan. The idea is so absurd that it does not merit further comment.
Instead, the real question is why Sweden's highest military commander opines on the FRA Act. The only viable explanation is that the government has ordered him out to talk about this in order to ease their own internal tensions. The criticism of the FRA Act internally in the center-right coalition is not going away and it is dawning on prime minister Reinfeldt that he may actually lose the next election over this issue. He is not concerned with the fact that he has created a surveillance system that, in the hands of an unscrupulous administration, would be the perfect instrument for silencing the political opposition and create an open dictatorship.
Reinfeldt is not going to back down here. So the question is what he will do next. He has another big issue ahead of him, even more contentious than the FRA Act, and that is the upcoming re-writing of the Swedish constitution. To change the constitution in Sweden the legislature has to approve the new constitution with a simple majority vote one time before and one time after a general election. That general election is 2010, so a new constitution will be ready in draft form next year.
It is very likely that this new constitution will centralize even more political powers in the hands of the major political parties and reduce even further the influence of the people over their own government. The latest constitutional reform, in the early '90s, put more hurdles and bureaucracy between the people and its government. The FRA Act was another step in the direction of a government detaching itself from the people. The constitutional reform will be a third step, one that is even more likely now that the FRA Act has become law of the land.
The elected officials in the center-right coalition have already swallowed one bitter pill by ending individual privacy with the FRA Act. The next one - an authoritarian constitution - will be far less difficult to swallow.
For the first time Commander in Chief Hakan Syren comments on the controversial FRA Act. But Syren was careful when he made his remarks on the events around the law [as he appeared on the TV news] on Monday morning. The debate has taken a somewhat unfortunate direction and gotten lost, there is a conflict of interests where on the one hand we need defense intelligence and on the other hand [we want] individual privacy. It has become such a black-and-white issue that we cannot find the answer in one camp, but we need some kind of compromise.
The only compromise is of course one where, as in the USA Patriot Act, there is a court order before any kind of wiretapping can be allowed - meaning that the police (not the military intelligence) has to have probable cause before they even begin to listen in to what any particular Swedish citizen or resident is up to.
Right this moment Swedish [military cargo aircraft] are flying missions in Afghanistan and in order to feel confident doing so I need to know what may happen there in the form of missiles and such things.
This is an authentic translation of what he is saying. He needs to blanket wiretap every phone, fax, e-mail and internet account in Sweden in order to know whether or not some terrorist in Afghanistan is going to try to shoot down a Swedish airplane - in Afghanistan.
It is highly unlikely that a Taliban terrorist in Afghanistan, with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher on his back, would bother to send an e-mail to Sweden before he tried to shoot down a Swedish aircraft in Afghanistan. The idea is so absurd that it does not merit further comment.
Instead, the real question is why Sweden's highest military commander opines on the FRA Act. The only viable explanation is that the government has ordered him out to talk about this in order to ease their own internal tensions. The criticism of the FRA Act internally in the center-right coalition is not going away and it is dawning on prime minister Reinfeldt that he may actually lose the next election over this issue. He is not concerned with the fact that he has created a surveillance system that, in the hands of an unscrupulous administration, would be the perfect instrument for silencing the political opposition and create an open dictatorship.
Reinfeldt is not going to back down here. So the question is what he will do next. He has another big issue ahead of him, even more contentious than the FRA Act, and that is the upcoming re-writing of the Swedish constitution. To change the constitution in Sweden the legislature has to approve the new constitution with a simple majority vote one time before and one time after a general election. That general election is 2010, so a new constitution will be ready in draft form next year.
It is very likely that this new constitution will centralize even more political powers in the hands of the major political parties and reduce even further the influence of the people over their own government. The latest constitutional reform, in the early '90s, put more hurdles and bureaucracy between the people and its government. The FRA Act was another step in the direction of a government detaching itself from the people. The constitutional reform will be a third step, one that is even more likely now that the FRA Act has become law of the land.
The elected officials in the center-right coalition have already swallowed one bitter pill by ending individual privacy with the FRA Act. The next one - an authoritarian constitution - will be far less difficult to swallow.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
THE REAL PURPOSE BEHIND FRA ACT
The Swedish daily Expressen has an interview with Magnus Norell, a terrorism researcher at the Swedish Defense Research Institute. He is suprisingly candid about the FRA Act. In the bargain he does, inadvertently, reveal the true purpose behind the law:
Starting January 1 2009 the defense intelligence service FRA will, based on the FRA Act, eavesdrop on all cable-based communications that cross Sweden's borders.
They also have the right to tap in to cell phone conversations.
Supporters of the law point out that it is necessary in order to protect Swedes from foreign threats. But the problems is that there is no such threat that motivates the law, according to Magnus Norell.
This blog has been pointing to the lack of threats from the get-go.
FRA was a prominent institution during the Cold War, Norell says. But things look completely different today. There is no reason whatsoever to have this surveillance program in place today. ... According to Norell the system also assumes that terrorists will communicate in advance, openly, what they are going to do.
He also explains that if the terrorists are using a coded language (such as "shoes" instead of "explosives") the surveillance program must be able to catch those - which, essentially, is the same as trying to catch terrorists talking openly about their plans.
The newspaper also notes that the European Court recently found that a more restrictive surveillance program in Britain was in violation of the European Charter on Human Rights. Apparently the Swedish government did not bother to wait for the European Court to rule on this issue. They should have done so:
According to Norell the FRA Act gives broader discretionary powers than the British [surveillance program]. Many Western nations have the know-how. But they have constitutional courts that give people the opportunity to try the law against the constitution. They also do not give blanket permission to siphon all communications through the wiretapping program.
Sweden has no constitutional court. The highest authority on the constitution is the legislature that makes the laws that may violate the constitution. In fact, that same legislature is currently preparing to re-write Sweden's 34-year-old current constitution.
In other words, what we now know is that the FRA Act:
a) Was prepared for last year with the purchase of a big eavesdropping-ready computer;
b) Started already in 2005 under the socialist government; and
c) Was likely to face problems in the European Court based on the pending case with the less permissive British surveillance program.
So what is the true purpose behind the FRA Act? After all, it is highly unlikely that any politician would be so stupid as to start up this program years in advance and invest enormous amounts of tax money in it only to have it shut down by the European Court.
Magnus Norell confirms what this blog has already pointed out, namely that there is no real threat against Sweden that motivates the FRA Act as it has been officially marketed. Therefore, there is obviously a covert intent - and that intent is hiding in plain view. It is what the law permits the government to do: to eavesdrop on the entire population without any court order or even the slightest suspicion of foul play.
The true reason behind the FRA Act is, in other words, to legalize surveillance of political dissidents. It is more than likely that the Reinfeldt administration is incompetent enough to not see why its predecessor, the socialist government, wanted this law in the first place. The socialists, on the other hand, have wanted this law since 1995 when then prime minister Goran Persson said he wanted to document and persecute those who critized Sweden abroad.
The socialist party also has a tradition of monitoring the political views of the Swedish people. This has been done either through military intelligence (the "IB" case from the early 1970s is a good example) or through their affiliated unions (the Socialist Workplace Representatives Organization was operative for decades and ostensibly still exists). With the FRA surveillance program the next socialist government can spy on, and record the political views of, virtually the entire population. They can then weed out, target and go after all those they either do not like or consider a threat to their own power.
That is how plainly and simply the FRA Act fits in to modern Swedish politics. It is a tragedy that so many elected officials within the center-right coalition have decided to carry the water for their political adversaries.
Starting January 1 2009 the defense intelligence service FRA will, based on the FRA Act, eavesdrop on all cable-based communications that cross Sweden's borders.
They also have the right to tap in to cell phone conversations.
Supporters of the law point out that it is necessary in order to protect Swedes from foreign threats. But the problems is that there is no such threat that motivates the law, according to Magnus Norell.
This blog has been pointing to the lack of threats from the get-go.
FRA was a prominent institution during the Cold War, Norell says. But things look completely different today. There is no reason whatsoever to have this surveillance program in place today. ... According to Norell the system also assumes that terrorists will communicate in advance, openly, what they are going to do.
He also explains that if the terrorists are using a coded language (such as "shoes" instead of "explosives") the surveillance program must be able to catch those - which, essentially, is the same as trying to catch terrorists talking openly about their plans.
The newspaper also notes that the European Court recently found that a more restrictive surveillance program in Britain was in violation of the European Charter on Human Rights. Apparently the Swedish government did not bother to wait for the European Court to rule on this issue. They should have done so:
According to Norell the FRA Act gives broader discretionary powers than the British [surveillance program]. Many Western nations have the know-how. But they have constitutional courts that give people the opportunity to try the law against the constitution. They also do not give blanket permission to siphon all communications through the wiretapping program.
Sweden has no constitutional court. The highest authority on the constitution is the legislature that makes the laws that may violate the constitution. In fact, that same legislature is currently preparing to re-write Sweden's 34-year-old current constitution.
In other words, what we now know is that the FRA Act:
a) Was prepared for last year with the purchase of a big eavesdropping-ready computer;
b) Started already in 2005 under the socialist government; and
c) Was likely to face problems in the European Court based on the pending case with the less permissive British surveillance program.
So what is the true purpose behind the FRA Act? After all, it is highly unlikely that any politician would be so stupid as to start up this program years in advance and invest enormous amounts of tax money in it only to have it shut down by the European Court.
Magnus Norell confirms what this blog has already pointed out, namely that there is no real threat against Sweden that motivates the FRA Act as it has been officially marketed. Therefore, there is obviously a covert intent - and that intent is hiding in plain view. It is what the law permits the government to do: to eavesdrop on the entire population without any court order or even the slightest suspicion of foul play.
The true reason behind the FRA Act is, in other words, to legalize surveillance of political dissidents. It is more than likely that the Reinfeldt administration is incompetent enough to not see why its predecessor, the socialist government, wanted this law in the first place. The socialists, on the other hand, have wanted this law since 1995 when then prime minister Goran Persson said he wanted to document and persecute those who critized Sweden abroad.
The socialist party also has a tradition of monitoring the political views of the Swedish people. This has been done either through military intelligence (the "IB" case from the early 1970s is a good example) or through their affiliated unions (the Socialist Workplace Representatives Organization was operative for decades and ostensibly still exists). With the FRA surveillance program the next socialist government can spy on, and record the political views of, virtually the entire population. They can then weed out, target and go after all those they either do not like or consider a threat to their own power.
That is how plainly and simply the FRA Act fits in to modern Swedish politics. It is a tragedy that so many elected officials within the center-right coalition have decided to carry the water for their political adversaries.
Friday, July 4, 2008
MORE SWEDISH PROBLEMS WITH RIGHT AND WRONG
While authorizing blanket wiretapping of the entire country without suspicion of crime, the Swedish government is very particular about who is a terrorist and who is not. A man from Chechnya in Russia has been accused by Russian authorities of a number of terrorist crimes. he has been granted protection from extradition to Russia because, the Swedish government says, there is plenty of evidence of "crimes against human rights" in Chechnya, ostensibly committed by Russian authorities.
This has fired up Russia's foreign ministry:
The position taken by the Swedish authorities is nothing short of political hypocrisy, an attempt to split terrorists into good and evil. Stockholm is sending a signal that Sweden can provide a safe haven for terrorists, said the Russian foreign ministry on Friday. ... The highest court in Sweden has dismissed the charges against Adayev as being squarely political - [the charges] include terrorism, conspiracy to kill police officrs, illegal possession of firearms, and arms trade, the Russian foreign ministry added. Last year Sweden refused to extradite another Chechnyan man to Russia, suspected of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of a Russian photographer and journalist in 1999.
This high ground on Chechnya is taken by the same government who, again, is so afraid of terrorists within its own borders that it has legalized blanket wiretapping of e-mails, faxes, phone calls and internet activity of all Swedes, without any court approval or any discretionary restrictions. This is the same government who merrily extradites a Kurdish woman to Iran who has been involved in a political movement that the Iranian government has banned - and who is also the victim of Iran's anti-women Shariah law.
Lack of judgment on right and wrong is the most dangerous weakness a government can have. Couple that with unlimited powers to eavesdrop on all its citizens - and the breakdown of the rule of law is not far away.
This has fired up Russia's foreign ministry:
The position taken by the Swedish authorities is nothing short of political hypocrisy, an attempt to split terrorists into good and evil. Stockholm is sending a signal that Sweden can provide a safe haven for terrorists, said the Russian foreign ministry on Friday. ... The highest court in Sweden has dismissed the charges against Adayev as being squarely political - [the charges] include terrorism, conspiracy to kill police officrs, illegal possession of firearms, and arms trade, the Russian foreign ministry added. Last year Sweden refused to extradite another Chechnyan man to Russia, suspected of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of a Russian photographer and journalist in 1999.
This high ground on Chechnya is taken by the same government who, again, is so afraid of terrorists within its own borders that it has legalized blanket wiretapping of e-mails, faxes, phone calls and internet activity of all Swedes, without any court approval or any discretionary restrictions. This is the same government who merrily extradites a Kurdish woman to Iran who has been involved in a political movement that the Iranian government has banned - and who is also the victim of Iran's anti-women Shariah law.
Lack of judgment on right and wrong is the most dangerous weakness a government can have. Couple that with unlimited powers to eavesdrop on all its citizens - and the breakdown of the rule of law is not far away.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TOTALITARIAN IGNORANCE
One of the biggest reasons why Sweden is in such trouble with its new FRA act is that its government is stuffed with people who have a poor understanding of the distinction between right and wrong. This is a problem throughout Swedish society, but it is present in high concentrate at the higher levels in government.
An op-ed in the daily Aftonbladet illustrates this with clarity. It is about a Kurdish woman from Iran who came to Sweden as a refugee in 2005 and applied for political asylum. Her life was in danger under Iranian shariah laws, but also because of her involvement in a banned Kurdish political group. Kurdo Baksi, a Kurdish journalist living in Sweden, has the story.
The 31-year-old mother Roonak Shahbaz Panahy is a hunted woman without legal protection and whose life has been threatened in her native Iran as well as in Sweden where she has sought refuge. ... During her two marriages in Iran she was beaten badly by her husbands. Roonak's son, born in 2001, lives with his father in Iran. After the divorces both men have harassed Roonak and threatened her life. Despite filing police reports the authorities have not taken any steps to protect her beacuse her problems with her husband are not "the concern of society". ... The Swedish immigration agency has turned its back on Roonak, who is in desperate need of protection. The Immigration Bureau says that she has the upport she needs from the Iranian authorities ... .
Sweden has a track record of repatriating political refugees from Iran. Not long ago a homosexual man was sent back to an all too certain death. This startling respect for the Iranian government and its way of running its country is unusual in Europe and disturbing, at the very least.
The Iranian judicial system can in no way be compared to the Western [judicial systems] ... . In the case of honor related violence against women [shariah sanctioned violence/ExpSw] women are completely stripped of rights. You do not have to be an expert on the regime in Tehran to realize that the legal system in Iran always sides with the men. Sweden's immigration agencies should take Roonak's situation and pleads for help more seriously. Since Fadime Sahindal was killed by her father in Uppsala in January 2002 we have in Sweden had a vibrant debate about honorary [shariah] killings and the equal value of all men and women.
Despite all this, he continues, Sweden is not living up to its promises.
With the Roonak case Sweden's immigratio agencies one more time appear to be letting women down when they flee from their countries due to [religiously driven] honorary violence.
It is quite possible that this unwillingness to help women like Roonak is founded in a misguided belief that the regime in Iran is about as open and tolerant as any European government. But it is more likely that the Swedish government simply is afraid of the Iranian government. They know that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and that such sponsorship can be used against regimes that displease the mad men who run Iran. If this is the case, then Sweden is in grave danger itself. It is run by a government that is willing to sacrifice people - in this case Roonak - to pander to the terrorists and avoid being the target of the next attack.
It is scary that a government in a democratic country can be so quick to shine the shoes on totalitarian dictators. It tells us that the Swedish political leadership lacks the ability to tell right from wrong - and will easily sacrifice people to maintain its cowardice.
How can such cowards be trusted with such vast powers over its own people as they were given with the FRA Act? It is well known that cowards are afraid, and that fear is a motivating factor behind totalitarianism.
An op-ed in the daily Aftonbladet illustrates this with clarity. It is about a Kurdish woman from Iran who came to Sweden as a refugee in 2005 and applied for political asylum. Her life was in danger under Iranian shariah laws, but also because of her involvement in a banned Kurdish political group. Kurdo Baksi, a Kurdish journalist living in Sweden, has the story.
The 31-year-old mother Roonak Shahbaz Panahy is a hunted woman without legal protection and whose life has been threatened in her native Iran as well as in Sweden where she has sought refuge. ... During her two marriages in Iran she was beaten badly by her husbands. Roonak's son, born in 2001, lives with his father in Iran. After the divorces both men have harassed Roonak and threatened her life. Despite filing police reports the authorities have not taken any steps to protect her beacuse her problems with her husband are not "the concern of society". ... The Swedish immigration agency has turned its back on Roonak, who is in desperate need of protection. The Immigration Bureau says that she has the upport she needs from the Iranian authorities ... .
Sweden has a track record of repatriating political refugees from Iran. Not long ago a homosexual man was sent back to an all too certain death. This startling respect for the Iranian government and its way of running its country is unusual in Europe and disturbing, at the very least.
The Iranian judicial system can in no way be compared to the Western [judicial systems] ... . In the case of honor related violence against women [shariah sanctioned violence/ExpSw] women are completely stripped of rights. You do not have to be an expert on the regime in Tehran to realize that the legal system in Iran always sides with the men. Sweden's immigration agencies should take Roonak's situation and pleads for help more seriously. Since Fadime Sahindal was killed by her father in Uppsala in January 2002 we have in Sweden had a vibrant debate about honorary [shariah] killings and the equal value of all men and women.
Despite all this, he continues, Sweden is not living up to its promises.
With the Roonak case Sweden's immigratio agencies one more time appear to be letting women down when they flee from their countries due to [religiously driven] honorary violence.
It is quite possible that this unwillingness to help women like Roonak is founded in a misguided belief that the regime in Iran is about as open and tolerant as any European government. But it is more likely that the Swedish government simply is afraid of the Iranian government. They know that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and that such sponsorship can be used against regimes that displease the mad men who run Iran. If this is the case, then Sweden is in grave danger itself. It is run by a government that is willing to sacrifice people - in this case Roonak - to pander to the terrorists and avoid being the target of the next attack.
It is scary that a government in a democratic country can be so quick to shine the shoes on totalitarian dictators. It tells us that the Swedish political leadership lacks the ability to tell right from wrong - and will easily sacrifice people to maintain its cowardice.
How can such cowards be trusted with such vast powers over its own people as they were given with the FRA Act? It is well known that cowards are afraid, and that fear is a motivating factor behind totalitarianism.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE FRA ACT
The daily Expressen maintains its coverage of the FRA Act as well as its own campaign against the law. Its call for protests against the act has apparently led to some six million e-mails being sent to the Swedish parliament, the Riksdag - quite a number given that Sweden's population is only nine million.
But the newapaper also gives a fair and balanced coverage of the debate over the FRA Act. Today they interview Karin Enstrom, member of the Riksdag for the Moderate (conservative) party. She is a staunch defender of the FRA Act, however her defense - which is trying to put the FRA Act in a broader perspective - lacks historical context.
As far as Karin Enstrom is concerned there is no doubt that Sweden should have a wiretapping program run by the FRA. 'You have to look at it in a broader perspective. It is an important part of defense intelligence, which in turn provides support for decisions regarding policies on foreign relations, national security and defense' she explains.
Then the newspaper makes the somewhat redundant but apparently still needed point that Sweden is not facing any military threats.
No, there is no military threat against Sweden in particular. But there are threats of various kinds, both against Sweden and, e.g., other EU member states. It is everything from terrorism and serious multinational criminal activity to computer attacks and proliferation of WMDs. It is a matter of a broader concept of security where we consider other kinds of threats than the traditional ones.
Multinational criminal activity has been around for as long as there has been organized crime. Terrorism was a bigger threat to Sweden in the 1970s when the country was the target of three terrorist attacks. One involved the hi-jacking of a civilian airliner by Serbian Ustasja separatists; in another, Baader Meinhof terrorists occupied and eventually blew up the West German embassy in Stockholm; in a third attack, the same German terrorists plotted to kidnap the Swedish foreign minister. That attack was foiled in the last minute by Sweden's civilian (not military) intelligence. And they did it at a time when there were no internet, e-mails or cell phones.
And while we are back in the 1970s, it might be worth pointing out that if the FRA Act had been proposed then, it would have given the military intelligence service the right to open regular mail being send through the Swedish postal service - and not only that. They would have been allowed to open every letter, copy it and store the copy for future reading and cross-referencing with other correspondence.
No such law was ever proposed back then, despite the fact that Sweden had been targeted by terrorists on numerous occasions in a short period of time.
But the newapaper also gives a fair and balanced coverage of the debate over the FRA Act. Today they interview Karin Enstrom, member of the Riksdag for the Moderate (conservative) party. She is a staunch defender of the FRA Act, however her defense - which is trying to put the FRA Act in a broader perspective - lacks historical context.
As far as Karin Enstrom is concerned there is no doubt that Sweden should have a wiretapping program run by the FRA. 'You have to look at it in a broader perspective. It is an important part of defense intelligence, which in turn provides support for decisions regarding policies on foreign relations, national security and defense' she explains.
Then the newspaper makes the somewhat redundant but apparently still needed point that Sweden is not facing any military threats.
No, there is no military threat against Sweden in particular. But there are threats of various kinds, both against Sweden and, e.g., other EU member states. It is everything from terrorism and serious multinational criminal activity to computer attacks and proliferation of WMDs. It is a matter of a broader concept of security where we consider other kinds of threats than the traditional ones.
Multinational criminal activity has been around for as long as there has been organized crime. Terrorism was a bigger threat to Sweden in the 1970s when the country was the target of three terrorist attacks. One involved the hi-jacking of a civilian airliner by Serbian Ustasja separatists; in another, Baader Meinhof terrorists occupied and eventually blew up the West German embassy in Stockholm; in a third attack, the same German terrorists plotted to kidnap the Swedish foreign minister. That attack was foiled in the last minute by Sweden's civilian (not military) intelligence. And they did it at a time when there were no internet, e-mails or cell phones.
And while we are back in the 1970s, it might be worth pointing out that if the FRA Act had been proposed then, it would have given the military intelligence service the right to open regular mail being send through the Swedish postal service - and not only that. They would have been allowed to open every letter, copy it and store the copy for future reading and cross-referencing with other correspondence.
No such law was ever proposed back then, despite the fact that Sweden had been targeted by terrorists on numerous occasions in a short period of time.
Monday, June 30, 2008
FRA SPY PROGRAM INSECURE TO LEAKS
The ink has barely dried on the op-ed by the FRA boss where he fervently defends his agency's ability to handle its blanket wiretapping authority with integrity and respect. And already the daily Dagens Nyheter reports that employees at the FRA have leaked highly classified material to the press.
In the report, which was broadcast [by Sweden's national TV station SVT] it was claimed that the FRA has clandestinely been storing Swedish telephone and computer communications for a good ten years. Someone at the FRA revealed discussions on the agency's internal network, and therefore the national attorney for freedom of speech issues is suspecting breaches of a pledge to secrecy from a government employee.
Apparently the Swedish government considers this as potentially putting Sweden's national security in jeopardy.
What this goes to show is that the FRA is as vulnerable to corruption and leaks as any other government agency. Given the incredible sensitivity of the material that the FRA collects from its blanket wiretapping program, this makes it all the more easy for politicians to spy on each other and - not to forget - the people.
In the report, which was broadcast [by Sweden's national TV station SVT] it was claimed that the FRA has clandestinely been storing Swedish telephone and computer communications for a good ten years. Someone at the FRA revealed discussions on the agency's internal network, and therefore the national attorney for freedom of speech issues is suspecting breaches of a pledge to secrecy from a government employee.
Apparently the Swedish government considers this as potentially putting Sweden's national security in jeopardy.
What this goes to show is that the FRA is as vulnerable to corruption and leaks as any other government agency. Given the incredible sensitivity of the material that the FRA collects from its blanket wiretapping program, this makes it all the more easy for politicians to spy on each other and - not to forget - the people.
SWEDISH MEDIA SPLIT OVER FRA ACT
A telling difference is beginning to show between Swedish newspapers in their approach to the FRA Act. While the socialist daily Aftonbladet has echoed the opinions of the socialist party, the more center-oriented Expressen has started a campaign against the FRA Act.
Through expressen.se readers can e-mail all members of the Riksdag who voted for the FRA Act or abstained from voting. Says Thomas Mattsson, chief editor for Expressen Digital Media: 'The prime minister says that he is hoping the debate will subside. But according to opinion polls a majority of the Swedish people think this law is wrong. And since these politicians are interested in having the government read the people's e-mails, we are now offering the Swedish people an opportunity to e-mail the politicians and voice their opinion about [the FRA Act].'
The difference between the protests against the FRA Act in Expressen and Aftonbladet is that the latter is carrying the water for the socialist opposition - who only wants to make nominal changes to the law and then keep it - while the former is decidedly against the law itself. The Expressen e-mail campaign is unprecedented in Swedish politics and is therefore unlikely to have any effect. Sweden's parliamentary system is solidly based on the political party structure and the parties, in turn, are run by a small group of party bosses. They set the agenda and those who stray from it are punished harshly. And since the party bosses within the center-right coalition want the FRA Act, nobody will bring ths law up for another consideration.
That does not mean that protests are in vain. They can hopefully make some members of the Riksdag reconsider their careers and make it a bit more difficult for the political parties to find new, suitably loyal candidates in the next election.
Through expressen.se readers can e-mail all members of the Riksdag who voted for the FRA Act or abstained from voting. Says Thomas Mattsson, chief editor for Expressen Digital Media: 'The prime minister says that he is hoping the debate will subside. But according to opinion polls a majority of the Swedish people think this law is wrong. And since these politicians are interested in having the government read the people's e-mails, we are now offering the Swedish people an opportunity to e-mail the politicians and voice their opinion about [the FRA Act].'
The difference between the protests against the FRA Act in Expressen and Aftonbladet is that the latter is carrying the water for the socialist opposition - who only wants to make nominal changes to the law and then keep it - while the former is decidedly against the law itself. The Expressen e-mail campaign is unprecedented in Swedish politics and is therefore unlikely to have any effect. Sweden's parliamentary system is solidly based on the political party structure and the parties, in turn, are run by a small group of party bosses. They set the agenda and those who stray from it are punished harshly. And since the party bosses within the center-right coalition want the FRA Act, nobody will bring ths law up for another consideration.
That does not mean that protests are in vain. They can hopefully make some members of the Riksdag reconsider their careers and make it a bit more difficult for the political parties to find new, suitably loyal candidates in the next election.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
ANOTHER BLANKET SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
A Swedish blogger, Nasrin Mosavi, reminds her readers of another Swedish blanket surveillance program, the so called PKU registry. The government takes a blood sample from every child born in Sweden since 1975. With DNA technology this means that the government has the DNA of every person born in Sweden who is now 33 or younger. This registry will soon be opened to law enforcement for unlimited access.
EUROPEAN TROUBLE FOR THE FRA ACT
The Reinfeldt administration might have to defend its FRA Act in the highest court of the European Union.
A representative of a [Belgian] government commission to protect the privacy of citizens says in Belgian TV that the FRA Act, by all certainty, will be tried in the European Court. The Commission for Protection of Privacy is an independent, government-appointed commission that was created by the Belgian parliament. It has now focused its interest on the Swedish wiretapping debate. 'We are very surprised' says Willem Debeucklaere of the CPVP about the fact that the Swedish Riksdag has passed the FRA Act. 'An intelligence service that can wiretap anything without a court order? Is that really legal?' asks the host of the show. 'No, as a matter of fact not' Willem Debeucklaere replies. 'I do not believe this meets Europan standards, which of course Sweden also must abide by. I believe this will either end up before the Swedish constitutional court or perhaps in Luxembourg, but certainly in Strasbourg' [before the European Court].
It might be worth noting here that Sweden, unlike virtually any other democratic country, does not have a constitutional court. The legislature has the final say on whether its own laws are constitutional or not. Other than that, the CPVP's criticism of the FRA Act is interesting because it means that the Belgian organization might actually sue the Swedish government in the EU Court system over the FRA Act.
A representative of a [Belgian] government commission to protect the privacy of citizens says in Belgian TV that the FRA Act, by all certainty, will be tried in the European Court. The Commission for Protection of Privacy is an independent, government-appointed commission that was created by the Belgian parliament. It has now focused its interest on the Swedish wiretapping debate. 'We are very surprised' says Willem Debeucklaere of the CPVP about the fact that the Swedish Riksdag has passed the FRA Act. 'An intelligence service that can wiretap anything without a court order? Is that really legal?' asks the host of the show. 'No, as a matter of fact not' Willem Debeucklaere replies. 'I do not believe this meets Europan standards, which of course Sweden also must abide by. I believe this will either end up before the Swedish constitutional court or perhaps in Luxembourg, but certainly in Strasbourg' [before the European Court].
It might be worth noting here that Sweden, unlike virtually any other democratic country, does not have a constitutional court. The legislature has the final say on whether its own laws are constitutional or not. Other than that, the CPVP's criticism of the FRA Act is interesting because it means that the Belgian organization might actually sue the Swedish government in the EU Court system over the FRA Act.
THE REINFELDT ADMINISTRATION TRIES NEW PROPAGANDA TRICK
In order to sell the FRA Act ex post facto and silence the critics, Prime Minister Reinfeldt has asked Anders Wik, the head of FRA, to write an op-ed in Dagens Nyheter, one of Sweden's largest newspapers. This is an unprecedented presence in media and a clear sign that Reinfeldt has realized that he is very nervous that this thing is going to come back and haunt him in the 2010 election.
The Swedish people is not shielded from eavesdropping just because we are not wiretappin in Sweden. That the FRA Act would create Stasi-style surveillance, unique to the Western World, is simply not true.
From a technical standpoint he is correct, of course. But this is not a matter of wiretapping technology, nor about what others are doing. American, British and German intelligence services operate under a different legal and political framework than FRA. U.S. intelligence services are tightly controlled by Congress, and eavesdropping programs such as Echelon and Protect America do not give eternal, unlimited wiretapping rights to the agencies in charge. Protect America was, e.g., time limited and expired when Congress refused to renew it. The FRA Act is unlimited in time as well as the scope of the wiretapping. The only limit on it is supposedly the search parameters once everyone's e-mails and phone calls have been recorded.
Foreign intelligence services are already eavesdropping on a broad scale. If FRA stopped listening to international communications to and from Sweden we would only become more dependent on what foreign intelligence services intercept.
If the FRA could present a single case where they have gotten information from abroad that their new program - and only their new program - would have intercepted, then the case for the FRA program would perhaps be a bit more credible. But Anders Wik does not do that. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that this program comes nowhere near the necessity that would merit its vast infringements on privacy.
Then Wik goes on to try to make the case that the FRA program is not suitable for "spying" on people:
You can test an FRA'er by talking about the spying that the FRA does. The reaction will immediately be that "no, no, FRA is doing legal intelligence, spying is illegal intelligence. The FRA does not break the law". I learned this when I started at the FRA and it is as true today [as it was then]. The FRA must not break the law, nor does the FRA do that. To call electronic surveillance spying and the FRA employees "agents" and "spies" is journalistically colorful, but also a way to portray our operations as shady and illegal.
First of all, intelligence services almost by definition do their job in the shades. If they did it out in the open they would not be effective. Secondly, what Wik is actually saying is that whatever a spy did before the FRA Act was passed, the FRA can now do legally. That defeats the entire purpose with his article - he inadvertently admits that the Riksdag now has legalized spying.
FRA has been scanning international communications for many years. If you write "bomb, terror, attack, Usama" in an e-mail you actually do not get caught in our system, even if it is in a foreign language and sent to the Middle East.
Up until now, when every e-mail, phone call, fax and internet activity will be blanket recorded and kept on file.
The FRA is doing international surveillance, the police does the national [surveillance]
What Anders Wik does not mention is that it is technically impossible to separate international electronic communications from national comunications. You cannot put a wiretap at the geographic border and then only sort out Sweden-to-World or World-to-Sweden communications. To achieve its goals the FRA has to wiretap at the communication platform - the internet server, the cell phone tower, the telephone and fax landline switchboard.
Then he goes over to try to reassure the Swedish people that the FRA are good guys who would not want to spy - er... eavesdrop - on domestic communications.
The client [odd term/ExpSw] who demanded domestic survaillance would not be met sympathetically but would face counter-arguments.
Swedish politicians and government bureaucracies have a long, tainted history of abusing the "trust us" phrase. The Swedish public sector is one of the most corrupt in the EU. But more importantly, even if Anders Wik was correct in that the FRA staff would defy their own government and employer, and say that they wanted no part in a domestic surveillance program, their employer would simply fire them and replace them with more compliant staff. Given the Swedish culture of unabridged compliance and the relatively shaky job market, it is unlikely that anyone at FRA would risk their jobs over this issue.
The biggest problem with the FRA Act is that the government will now blanket wiretap and record electronic communications - and then, after the fact, have the opportunity to search the recorded material for whatever information they want to. In fact, the FRA Act does give the prime minister and his/her cabinet the right to select search parameters for scanning the recorded communications. That opens for direct political abuse of the FRA surveillance system, which is exactly what the Act's critics fear will happen. Nothing that Anders Wik says helps reduce those concerns.
If anything, the very fact that he is writing this article shows that Prime Minister Reinfeldt is more concerned about the political fallout from the FRA Act - and the consequences of the law - than he has admitted.
The Swedish people is not shielded from eavesdropping just because we are not wiretappin in Sweden. That the FRA Act would create Stasi-style surveillance, unique to the Western World, is simply not true.
From a technical standpoint he is correct, of course. But this is not a matter of wiretapping technology, nor about what others are doing. American, British and German intelligence services operate under a different legal and political framework than FRA. U.S. intelligence services are tightly controlled by Congress, and eavesdropping programs such as Echelon and Protect America do not give eternal, unlimited wiretapping rights to the agencies in charge. Protect America was, e.g., time limited and expired when Congress refused to renew it. The FRA Act is unlimited in time as well as the scope of the wiretapping. The only limit on it is supposedly the search parameters once everyone's e-mails and phone calls have been recorded.
Foreign intelligence services are already eavesdropping on a broad scale. If FRA stopped listening to international communications to and from Sweden we would only become more dependent on what foreign intelligence services intercept.
If the FRA could present a single case where they have gotten information from abroad that their new program - and only their new program - would have intercepted, then the case for the FRA program would perhaps be a bit more credible. But Anders Wik does not do that. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that this program comes nowhere near the necessity that would merit its vast infringements on privacy.
Then Wik goes on to try to make the case that the FRA program is not suitable for "spying" on people:
You can test an FRA'er by talking about the spying that the FRA does. The reaction will immediately be that "no, no, FRA is doing legal intelligence, spying is illegal intelligence. The FRA does not break the law". I learned this when I started at the FRA and it is as true today [as it was then]. The FRA must not break the law, nor does the FRA do that. To call electronic surveillance spying and the FRA employees "agents" and "spies" is journalistically colorful, but also a way to portray our operations as shady and illegal.
First of all, intelligence services almost by definition do their job in the shades. If they did it out in the open they would not be effective. Secondly, what Wik is actually saying is that whatever a spy did before the FRA Act was passed, the FRA can now do legally. That defeats the entire purpose with his article - he inadvertently admits that the Riksdag now has legalized spying.
FRA has been scanning international communications for many years. If you write "bomb, terror, attack, Usama" in an e-mail you actually do not get caught in our system, even if it is in a foreign language and sent to the Middle East.
Up until now, when every e-mail, phone call, fax and internet activity will be blanket recorded and kept on file.
The FRA is doing international surveillance, the police does the national [surveillance]
What Anders Wik does not mention is that it is technically impossible to separate international electronic communications from national comunications. You cannot put a wiretap at the geographic border and then only sort out Sweden-to-World or World-to-Sweden communications. To achieve its goals the FRA has to wiretap at the communication platform - the internet server, the cell phone tower, the telephone and fax landline switchboard.
Then he goes over to try to reassure the Swedish people that the FRA are good guys who would not want to spy - er... eavesdrop - on domestic communications.
The client [odd term/ExpSw] who demanded domestic survaillance would not be met sympathetically but would face counter-arguments.
Swedish politicians and government bureaucracies have a long, tainted history of abusing the "trust us" phrase. The Swedish public sector is one of the most corrupt in the EU. But more importantly, even if Anders Wik was correct in that the FRA staff would defy their own government and employer, and say that they wanted no part in a domestic surveillance program, their employer would simply fire them and replace them with more compliant staff. Given the Swedish culture of unabridged compliance and the relatively shaky job market, it is unlikely that anyone at FRA would risk their jobs over this issue.
The biggest problem with the FRA Act is that the government will now blanket wiretap and record electronic communications - and then, after the fact, have the opportunity to search the recorded material for whatever information they want to. In fact, the FRA Act does give the prime minister and his/her cabinet the right to select search parameters for scanning the recorded communications. That opens for direct political abuse of the FRA surveillance system, which is exactly what the Act's critics fear will happen. Nothing that Anders Wik says helps reduce those concerns.
If anything, the very fact that he is writing this article shows that Prime Minister Reinfeldt is more concerned about the political fallout from the FRA Act - and the consequences of the law - than he has admitted.
Friday, June 27, 2008
CENTER-RIGHT COALITION TRIES TO KILL INTERNAL FRA ACT OPPOSITION
The FRA Act resistance within the center-right coalition is still strong, but in accordance with Swedish tradition the national leadership of the political parties are now trying to quell internal opposition. And the internal propaganda tour is like taken out of an East Europe Communist playbook. The daily Dagens Nyheter reports:
Representatives of the Center Party's local districts discussed Wednesday night what information to give their members in order to convince them that passing the FRA Act was the right thing to do. Mats Brannstrom, chairman of the Center Party in Gothenburg, and Per Ankersjo, chairman of the party district in Stockholm both admitted that far from everyone in the party is behind the FRA Act. 'After our meeting this morning the district chairmen have a very important job trying to present the information about the FRA Act to their members as clearly as possible.
In other words: the district chairmen, who are elected by the local members, are now the propaganda tools of the party leadership. Their job is to do what the party leadership could not muster, namely to convince regular party grassroots why blanket wiretapping of every man, woman and child in Sweden is in their own best interest.
If they can get away with this, they can get away with anything.
Representatives of the Center Party's local districts discussed Wednesday night what information to give their members in order to convince them that passing the FRA Act was the right thing to do. Mats Brannstrom, chairman of the Center Party in Gothenburg, and Per Ankersjo, chairman of the party district in Stockholm both admitted that far from everyone in the party is behind the FRA Act. 'After our meeting this morning the district chairmen have a very important job trying to present the information about the FRA Act to their members as clearly as possible.
In other words: the district chairmen, who are elected by the local members, are now the propaganda tools of the party leadership. Their job is to do what the party leadership could not muster, namely to convince regular party grassroots why blanket wiretapping of every man, woman and child in Sweden is in their own best interest.
If they can get away with this, they can get away with anything.
SOCIALIST COLUMNIST FLAGS FOR CONCESSION
Sweden's largest newspaper, Aftonbladet, has been very critical of the FRA Act, and so for good reasons. With this new act, and its already hired staffers and its already up-and-running super computer, the FRA can wiretap every phone call, every fax, e-mail and internet activity in Sweden. Then they can record it and search it for every conceivable content. For newspapers this means that the integrity of their informants is reduced to snail mail and personal contact - back to the 19th century, alas.
But Aftonbladet's opposition to this law has its limits. Their party affiliation - socialist - is strong and the socialist leader and next prime minister, Mona Sahlin, has said that she wants to keep but marginally rewrite the FRA Act. So now Aftonbladet signals that it will begin to roll back its unconditional opposition to the FRA Act. The first flagging of this gradual turn-around comes from columnist Lena Mellin:
The FRA Act is to be used against the evil forces. But it is a dangerous tools that the spies at Ekero [where FRA is located] now have been handed. Used wrong it can be outright abhorrent. Therefore it is disturbing that a third of the Swedes are for this big brother law in its current form.
What Lena Mellin is signaling here is that the law "in its current form" is so bad that not even a third of the people ought to be for it. In "another" form, on the other hand, it could very well be acceptable.
Mellin is a seasoned columnist and has very good connections with the socialist party leadership. She knows that they will keep the FRA Act and that she better get used to it. She also knows that if the newspaper can lower its profile and help the socialists win in 2010 - despite the fact that they will not abolish the FRA Act - they might be given a pass on the anonymous informant issue. If on the other hand they maintain a position that is not in accordance with the party line, they will have to reduce their operations from whatever is left of their newspaper business to sheer infotainment.
But Aftonbladet's opposition to this law has its limits. Their party affiliation - socialist - is strong and the socialist leader and next prime minister, Mona Sahlin, has said that she wants to keep but marginally rewrite the FRA Act. So now Aftonbladet signals that it will begin to roll back its unconditional opposition to the FRA Act. The first flagging of this gradual turn-around comes from columnist Lena Mellin:
The FRA Act is to be used against the evil forces. But it is a dangerous tools that the spies at Ekero [where FRA is located] now have been handed. Used wrong it can be outright abhorrent. Therefore it is disturbing that a third of the Swedes are for this big brother law in its current form.
What Lena Mellin is signaling here is that the law "in its current form" is so bad that not even a third of the people ought to be for it. In "another" form, on the other hand, it could very well be acceptable.
Mellin is a seasoned columnist and has very good connections with the socialist party leadership. She knows that they will keep the FRA Act and that she better get used to it. She also knows that if the newspaper can lower its profile and help the socialists win in 2010 - despite the fact that they will not abolish the FRA Act - they might be given a pass on the anonymous informant issue. If on the other hand they maintain a position that is not in accordance with the party line, they will have to reduce their operations from whatever is left of their newspaper business to sheer infotainment.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
THE CEILING IS LOW IN SWEDEN'S PARLIAMENT
The only member of the center-right coalition in the Swedish Riksdag who voted against the FRA Act was Camilla Lindberg of the Liberal Party. The story of what flak she had to take for that is telling of the political climate in Sweden's national legislature.
'Soon you will have no friends left.' That was what Camilla Lindberg heard from her fellow members of the Liberal Party delegation to the Riksdag, as a result of her refusal to vote for the FRA Act. When the Riksdag voted on the FRA Act last week Camilla Lindberg was alone in voting no among the center-right coalition. Now she is revealing the threats she had to endure prior to the vote. Some of her fellows in the Liberal Party group made it clear to her that if she refused to fold to the party whip she would soon have no friends left in the group.
This is by no means a unique event in this respect. It is what Swedish politics is like. Conformity is a very strong character trait in Swedish culture and anyone who stands out - or stands up - is immediately the target of fold-or-scold attacks. In this particular case there was a rationale behind the attacks, albeit a perverted one, but more often than not the conformity culture conforms people just for the sake of conformity.
What makes me most disappointed is that they did not treat me as a grown-up... It does not help, at least not when it comes to me, to yell and scream. Quite the contrary.
This is likely the result of the fact that so many others wanted to vote with her but folded to pressure. Instead of reacting against those who were shoving the FRA Act down their throats, those political weaklings decided to take it out on whoever refused to cave in to pressure. Instead of supporting her they expressed a sort of perverted envy of how strong her backbone was. In a case where so much is at stake, this cultural instinct to curse the unconformed instead of the conformers has disastrous effects. It allows the government to move the country in a totalitarian direction merely because those who are supposed to be the people's watchdogs are more concerned with fitting in with their fellow politicians than to stand up for any sort of ideals.
It is unlikely that anyone like Camilla Lindberg, no matter the strength of her backbone, can endure the same kind of pressure again. When it comes to re-writing Sweden's constitution, this means that basically anything can sail through. Only a steadfast, unrelenting public opinion can prevent that constitutional reform from becoming an authoritarian tragedy.
'Soon you will have no friends left.' That was what Camilla Lindberg heard from her fellow members of the Liberal Party delegation to the Riksdag, as a result of her refusal to vote for the FRA Act. When the Riksdag voted on the FRA Act last week Camilla Lindberg was alone in voting no among the center-right coalition. Now she is revealing the threats she had to endure prior to the vote. Some of her fellows in the Liberal Party group made it clear to her that if she refused to fold to the party whip she would soon have no friends left in the group.
This is by no means a unique event in this respect. It is what Swedish politics is like. Conformity is a very strong character trait in Swedish culture and anyone who stands out - or stands up - is immediately the target of fold-or-scold attacks. In this particular case there was a rationale behind the attacks, albeit a perverted one, but more often than not the conformity culture conforms people just for the sake of conformity.
What makes me most disappointed is that they did not treat me as a grown-up... It does not help, at least not when it comes to me, to yell and scream. Quite the contrary.
This is likely the result of the fact that so many others wanted to vote with her but folded to pressure. Instead of reacting against those who were shoving the FRA Act down their throats, those political weaklings decided to take it out on whoever refused to cave in to pressure. Instead of supporting her they expressed a sort of perverted envy of how strong her backbone was. In a case where so much is at stake, this cultural instinct to curse the unconformed instead of the conformers has disastrous effects. It allows the government to move the country in a totalitarian direction merely because those who are supposed to be the people's watchdogs are more concerned with fitting in with their fellow politicians than to stand up for any sort of ideals.
It is unlikely that anyone like Camilla Lindberg, no matter the strength of her backbone, can endure the same kind of pressure again. When it comes to re-writing Sweden's constitution, this means that basically anything can sail through. Only a steadfast, unrelenting public opinion can prevent that constitutional reform from becoming an authoritarian tragedy.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
SLICK SOCIALIST LEADER SAYS NO - AND YES - TO FRA ACT
The big Swedish socialist party skillfully avoided getting in to the FRA Act skirmishes when the act was up for a vote in the Riksdag. They declared clearly that they were going to vote no, but did not spell out exactly what they wanted to do. Now their new leader Mona Sahlin, has this to say:
If [there is a vote] on the bill that was in the Riksdag, then we will remove the act and change it. When we vote in the Riksdag it is for real [sic] and if we win the next election we will also do it differently.
She does, of course, not spell out exactly what this means. As a general approach she says that she wants "more transparency for the people" and then concludes with an ominous statement. She wants to change the premises for the FRA surveillance:
[I want them to] not just poke their finger in to the cables and see what they find, but instead search for what they see as suspicion of a crime.
In other words: all she wants to do is tell the FRA to define their search parameters as "looking for indications of possible crimes" or some such thing. And that's all. She does not want to end the surveillance system, nor does she want to shrink it. All she wants is a token gesture to show people that she is concerned.
It is uncertain whether Mrs. Sahlin's position on this has been made clear to those in the small, radical Left Party, who were very vocally against the FRA Act and will run on abolishing this law in 2010. Since they cannot gain any significant influence without tagging on to the big socialists to form a parliamentary majority, they will not be able to keep their promises to do away with the FRA Act. This could prove as damaging to them as the act will be to the small members of the incumbent center-right coalition.
If [there is a vote] on the bill that was in the Riksdag, then we will remove the act and change it. When we vote in the Riksdag it is for real [sic] and if we win the next election we will also do it differently.
She does, of course, not spell out exactly what this means. As a general approach she says that she wants "more transparency for the people" and then concludes with an ominous statement. She wants to change the premises for the FRA surveillance:
[I want them to] not just poke their finger in to the cables and see what they find, but instead search for what they see as suspicion of a crime.
In other words: all she wants to do is tell the FRA to define their search parameters as "looking for indications of possible crimes" or some such thing. And that's all. She does not want to end the surveillance system, nor does she want to shrink it. All she wants is a token gesture to show people that she is concerned.
It is uncertain whether Mrs. Sahlin's position on this has been made clear to those in the small, radical Left Party, who were very vocally against the FRA Act and will run on abolishing this law in 2010. Since they cannot gain any significant influence without tagging on to the big socialists to form a parliamentary majority, they will not be able to keep their promises to do away with the FRA Act. This could prove as damaging to them as the act will be to the small members of the incumbent center-right coalition.
MORE TURBULENCE IN THE CENTER-RIGHT COALITION OVER FRA ACT
The Center party, a small component in the Center-Right coalition that currently governs Sweden, is suffering from internal protests against the FRA Act. Regular members and active party officials at the regional and local levels are forming a protest, demanding an explanation why the party's parliamentary group voted for the FRA Act when, in fact, the party itself has as its official policy not to support such wiretapping programs.
We have already reported that an influential member of the prime minister's own party is floating the idea of leaving the Moderates over the FRA Act. This type of protests over legislation is almost unprecedented in Sweden - only the crisis over nuclear power back in 1980 can surpass it. That crisis led to the formation of an entirely new party, the Environmental Party (Green Socialists), and there is at least a theoretical chance that the FRA Act may bring about a new libertarian party in Sweden.
We have already reported that an influential member of the prime minister's own party is floating the idea of leaving the Moderates over the FRA Act. This type of protests over legislation is almost unprecedented in Sweden - only the crisis over nuclear power back in 1980 can surpass it. That crisis led to the formation of an entirely new party, the Environmental Party (Green Socialists), and there is at least a theoretical chance that the FRA Act may bring about a new libertarian party in Sweden.
FRA WIRETAPPING STARTED ALREADY IN 2005
The daily Aftonbladet reports on more evidence that the FRA Act was approved way in advance by Prime Minister Reinfeldt and his cabinet.
The FRA has already built a secret division that will examine e-mails and phone calls. The recruitment [of staff] is handled by a company started by former special forces soldiers. Today Aftonbladet can publish documents that reveal that the [wiretapping] operations existed already before the FRA Act was passed into law by the Riksdag.
As we have reported, the FRA got its first super computer for this program already last year. Now they have 20 people working with eavesdropping on all Swedish citizens.
Sources with knowledge of the FRA's operations say that the agency started building this secret division in mid-2005.
During the socialist administration, in other words. The same socialists who so adamantly are against this law now. This is just another indication that the socialists have pulled a jackpot politically with this law: they do not have to take political responsibility for it, but they will get it and be able to use it as it pleases them.
People who speak Arabic, Persian and Albanian fluently have been trained to read and analyze e-mails and SMS.
Then the news article reveals the true scope of this wiretapping program:
It covers electronic communications that is being sent within Sweden as well as across the nation's borders.
In other words, critics who said this was going to be a Soviet-style blanket monitoring system to track all citizens were right from the get-go.
This entire story reinforces the fact that Prime Minister Reinfeldt is blatantly disrespectful of the rights and freedoms of Swedish citizens and residents. The same obviously goes for the socialists, who wrote the FRA Act and, we now know, started the program way before it was legal.
This raises concerns regarding the coming re-writing of Sweden's constitution. What infringements on people's rights and freedoms will that bring?
The FRA has already built a secret division that will examine e-mails and phone calls. The recruitment [of staff] is handled by a company started by former special forces soldiers. Today Aftonbladet can publish documents that reveal that the [wiretapping] operations existed already before the FRA Act was passed into law by the Riksdag.
As we have reported, the FRA got its first super computer for this program already last year. Now they have 20 people working with eavesdropping on all Swedish citizens.
Sources with knowledge of the FRA's operations say that the agency started building this secret division in mid-2005.
During the socialist administration, in other words. The same socialists who so adamantly are against this law now. This is just another indication that the socialists have pulled a jackpot politically with this law: they do not have to take political responsibility for it, but they will get it and be able to use it as it pleases them.
People who speak Arabic, Persian and Albanian fluently have been trained to read and analyze e-mails and SMS.
Then the news article reveals the true scope of this wiretapping program:
It covers electronic communications that is being sent within Sweden as well as across the nation's borders.
In other words, critics who said this was going to be a Soviet-style blanket monitoring system to track all citizens were right from the get-go.
This entire story reinforces the fact that Prime Minister Reinfeldt is blatantly disrespectful of the rights and freedoms of Swedish citizens and residents. The same obviously goes for the socialists, who wrote the FRA Act and, we now know, started the program way before it was legal.
This raises concerns regarding the coming re-writing of Sweden's constitution. What infringements on people's rights and freedoms will that bring?
Monday, June 23, 2008
HIGH PROFILE MODERATE PARTY LEADER MAY QUIT OVER FRA ACT
Niklas Wykman, chairman of the Moderate Party's youth league, MUF, was one of the staunchest critics of the FRA Act within the center-right coalition. Now he considers leaving his party over the FRA law:
That the new law was passed [despite the protests] has been a big disappointment to him. After a careful look at the issue he can no longer see himself stay in the Moderate party unless the party distances itself from the FRA Act.
Kudos to him for his strong morale. He also predicts that the Moderate party, which has been a favorite among voters in the age group 18-30 for 25 years, will lose an entire generation of voters over this.
This is precisely what the Social Democrats were expecting. They will not end this law - they wrote the original version - but they will lie about it to win the 2010 election.
That the new law was passed [despite the protests] has been a big disappointment to him. After a careful look at the issue he can no longer see himself stay in the Moderate party unless the party distances itself from the FRA Act.
Kudos to him for his strong morale. He also predicts that the Moderate party, which has been a favorite among voters in the age group 18-30 for 25 years, will lose an entire generation of voters over this.
This is precisely what the Social Democrats were expecting. They will not end this law - they wrote the original version - but they will lie about it to win the 2010 election.
FRA PREPARED FOR WIRETAPPING A YEAR IN ADVANCE
Apparently, the Swedish government had no qualms about needing legal approval for its privacy-violating spy program. The daily newspaper Aftonbladet reports that...
Already last year [the FRA] purchased a new super computer that is capable of processing the enormous volume of information that will be coming in to the agency.
In other words, the government would have started its eavesdropping program regardless of whether they got the legal authorization for it or not. The parliament's approval was a side issue.
This only goes to show what blatant disrespect prime minister Reinfeldt and his cabinet has for the law of the land - and for the people's elected representatives.
Already last year [the FRA] purchased a new super computer that is capable of processing the enormous volume of information that will be coming in to the agency.
In other words, the government would have started its eavesdropping program regardless of whether they got the legal authorization for it or not. The parliament's approval was a side issue.
This only goes to show what blatant disrespect prime minister Reinfeldt and his cabinet has for the law of the land - and for the people's elected representatives.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
MISGUIDED OPTIMISM ABOUT FRA ACT
Henrik Brors, editorial writer with Sweden's largest morning daily, Dagens Nyheter, thinks that the FRA Act marks the beginning of citizen activism in Sweden.
When the dust has settled after the Riksdag's passing of the FRA Act [the act] might turn out to have been a turning point. Voters took one step closer to their elected officials - and discovered that it is indeed possible to influence politicians.
This is a highly unlikely scenario. The Swedish parliamentary system is designed to discourage direct influence from the voters. All such influence is filtered through the political parties, who have formidable control over the ballots in general election. They also have extreme loyalty policies in the Riksdag: over the course of a four-year term, a member of the parliament can break party ranks on one or two minor issues. In total. Not per session. No - that is one or two minor issues over four years.
To break party ranks in one major issue like this the Riksdag member has to have extremely strong support in the party as a whole - or an extremely strong political death wish. As for those who broke ranks on the FRA Act, it is hard to say which applies to each of them. One thing is sure, though: there will be serious consequences.
Because of this very tight party loyalty, it is highly unlikely that Henrik Brors is correct. On the contrary: if the people cannot sway their elected officials on an issue of this magnitude, then how would they be able to do it on smaller issues? How could you motivate people to get involved again, when they were unsuccessful here?
Henrik Brors admits (inadvertently) that he does not foresee a change in the Swedish tradition of isolated parlamentarians. The only example he can come up with is from 1959 when one member of the Riksdag abstained from voting on a bill that introduced a Swedish version of the U.S. Social Security system.
The lack of success in citizen uproar in Sweden is sharply contrasted against what the American public accomplished a year ago when they stopped Congress from voting for a bill that would have granted millions of illegal immigrants amnesty and a path to citizenship. The American public opinion has many features that Sweden does not have: a free television and - even more importantly - free radio. Americans listen to talk radio on the AM band, and do so in huge numbers. Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, has 22 million listeners every week. He and others, like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and Mark Levine, helped stage a massive uproar against the proposed amnesty bill - and they were successful.
Sweden's very tightly regulated media market adds to the difficulties in having the people influence their elected officials in real time, so to speak. And this is on an issue where, for a change, the media actually appeared to side with the people. How does Henrik Brors expect the people to sway the Riksdag on issues where mainstream media sides with the Riksdag?
The next test for real time influence of the Swedish people on their elected officials will come with the constitutional reform. It is highly doubtful that Henrik Brors and his newspaper colleageues will be ready to help the people out the way they did here.
When the dust has settled after the Riksdag's passing of the FRA Act [the act] might turn out to have been a turning point. Voters took one step closer to their elected officials - and discovered that it is indeed possible to influence politicians.
This is a highly unlikely scenario. The Swedish parliamentary system is designed to discourage direct influence from the voters. All such influence is filtered through the political parties, who have formidable control over the ballots in general election. They also have extreme loyalty policies in the Riksdag: over the course of a four-year term, a member of the parliament can break party ranks on one or two minor issues. In total. Not per session. No - that is one or two minor issues over four years.
To break party ranks in one major issue like this the Riksdag member has to have extremely strong support in the party as a whole - or an extremely strong political death wish. As for those who broke ranks on the FRA Act, it is hard to say which applies to each of them. One thing is sure, though: there will be serious consequences.
Because of this very tight party loyalty, it is highly unlikely that Henrik Brors is correct. On the contrary: if the people cannot sway their elected officials on an issue of this magnitude, then how would they be able to do it on smaller issues? How could you motivate people to get involved again, when they were unsuccessful here?
Henrik Brors admits (inadvertently) that he does not foresee a change in the Swedish tradition of isolated parlamentarians. The only example he can come up with is from 1959 when one member of the Riksdag abstained from voting on a bill that introduced a Swedish version of the U.S. Social Security system.
The lack of success in citizen uproar in Sweden is sharply contrasted against what the American public accomplished a year ago when they stopped Congress from voting for a bill that would have granted millions of illegal immigrants amnesty and a path to citizenship. The American public opinion has many features that Sweden does not have: a free television and - even more importantly - free radio. Americans listen to talk radio on the AM band, and do so in huge numbers. Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, has 22 million listeners every week. He and others, like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and Mark Levine, helped stage a massive uproar against the proposed amnesty bill - and they were successful.
Sweden's very tightly regulated media market adds to the difficulties in having the people influence their elected officials in real time, so to speak. And this is on an issue where, for a change, the media actually appeared to side with the people. How does Henrik Brors expect the people to sway the Riksdag on issues where mainstream media sides with the Riksdag?
The next test for real time influence of the Swedish people on their elected officials will come with the constitutional reform. It is highly doubtful that Henrik Brors and his newspaper colleageues will be ready to help the people out the way they did here.
Friday, June 20, 2008
SWEDISH LEFT HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT FRA ACT
It was the left that saw to it that the Riksdag passed the FRA Act by a very slim margin. They voted against it with fervor and passion. But nobody should be fooled into believing that their criticism of the FRA Act has anything to do with concern for individual freedom. The big socialist party, the Social Democrats, and the small socialist party, the VPK (Communists), are both for large, very intrusive governments. They want the government to run all health care, the entire education system (with no opportunities to choose your children's education), they want to raise taxes (the world's highest taxes is not enough) and tax your income with penalizing marginal rates so as to regulate how much money you can make, etc.
The Social Democrats opposed the FRA Act because they saw an opportunity to get the law passed without having to take the political fallout for it. Again - they invented this law back in 2004. The VPK opposed it because they know that someone will use it against them at some point.
The only genuinely respectable opposition to the FRA Act was within the Green Socialists and the very few members of the Riksdag from the center-right coalition who voted against it or abstained from voting.
As the campaign against the FRA Act continues, we have to be aware of the motives of some of the people on the same side. Totalitarianism is not isolated to the government's eavesdropping on our private conversations; totalitarianism is the government intruding on all aspects of our lives.
The Social Democrats opposed the FRA Act because they saw an opportunity to get the law passed without having to take the political fallout for it. Again - they invented this law back in 2004. The VPK opposed it because they know that someone will use it against them at some point.
The only genuinely respectable opposition to the FRA Act was within the Green Socialists and the very few members of the Riksdag from the center-right coalition who voted against it or abstained from voting.
As the campaign against the FRA Act continues, we have to be aware of the motives of some of the people on the same side. Totalitarianism is not isolated to the government's eavesdropping on our private conversations; totalitarianism is the government intruding on all aspects of our lives.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION - A NEW THREAT
Now that the Swedish government has been granted legal, and de facto unrestricted opportunities to eavesdrop on its citizens, it is time to start wondering what the upcoming constitutional reform will focus on. Sweden's current constitution is only 34 years old (yes - it was adopted when Gerald Ford was president) and the need to write a new one seems over the top artificial. A constitution is supposed to outlast the government, not the other way around.
It is important that every Swede with the slightest interest in his own individual freedoms keep a close eye on the constitutional reform process. It has not begun yet, but will start during this year. Chances are good - given the relative ease with which the FRA Act sailed through the Riksdag - that there will be further restrictions on individual freedoms and that those restrictions will make it in to the final draft without much protest.
A watchful eye on the constitutional reform process is more than desirable. It is a citizen duty.
It is important that every Swede with the slightest interest in his own individual freedoms keep a close eye on the constitutional reform process. It has not begun yet, but will start during this year. Chances are good - given the relative ease with which the FRA Act sailed through the Riksdag - that there will be further restrictions on individual freedoms and that those restrictions will make it in to the final draft without much protest.
A watchful eye on the constitutional reform process is more than desirable. It is a citizen duty.
CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE FRA ACT NOW ON FACEBOOK
There is now a campaign on Facebook to abolish the FRA Act. It is only available in Swedish for now, but there will be an English version further down the road. You can join it under its Swedish name: "Bort med FRA-Lagen!"
ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY GETS FRA ACT ALL WRONG
The FRA Act is getting some attention in an Associated Press story. Since the AP will define how this piece of legislation is presented in the American media it is important to correct the mistakes and omissions in the story.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Sweden's Parliament narrowly approved a contentious law Wednesday that gives authorities sweeping powers to eavesdrop on all e-mail and telephone traffic that crosses the Nordic nation's borders. The right-leaning government's slim majority helped secure 143-138 approval, despite strong opposition from left-leaning parties led by Social Democrats.
What the story leaves out is that the law was originally conceived by the socialist prime minister Goran Persson back in 1995 after he had given an infamous speech, saying that "we shall all speak well of our country" and "I will personally stigmatize anyone who criticizes our country abroad". A pretty stark statement coming from a Western European prime minister. It is, unfortunately, indicative of what kind of politician Mr. Persson was. And he held on to his belief that it was somehow within his jurisdiction - his right, in fact - as a prime minister to spy on his citizens. So in 2004 his closest henchman, Par Nuder, and minister of justice, Thomas Bodstrom, finally wrote a law that allowed the government to use computer technology for unlimited surveillance of the population. (By that time computer technology had advanced to a level where they felt comfortable implementing a system of this type.) The center-right government has taken the idea and run with it, not realizing that they are carrying the water for the socialists who now will win the 2010 election based on their no to this law - a law that they will then keep in place and use against the very politicians who made it the law of the land.
Supporters argued the law — which takes effect in January — will provide a level of security against potential terrorists plotting attacks.
It is common practice in Sweden that once a law is passed it will be treated as the law of the land even if it is supposed to take effect at a later date. The only thing between the government and this surveillance system is, therefore, the installation of the computer hardware they will need. Which could already be there, for all we know.
But critics have slammed it as an invasion of privacy and an infringement on civil liberties. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Parliament Wednesday, some handing out copies of George Orwell's famed "1984," dealing with a fictional police state. The new powers will give Swedish defense officials the right to scan international phone calls, e-mails and faxes for sensitive keywords without a court order.
Let us note, once again, that the FRA, which will run this wiretap system, is a branch of Sweden's military intelligence service. In other words, the military will be monitoring civilians with no suspicion of (civilian) criminal activity.
It is also important to add two things to the list of powers that the law grants the military:
a) They will be allowed to record anyone's and everyone's internet habits. Whatever websites you go to, they can now lawfully track that and compare your surfing habits to your e-mail correspondence, etc. Anything you say in chatrooms will also be recorded.
b) Newspapers are not exempt. Confidential informants are a thing of the past unless they use snail mail only as a means of contact.
All this wiretapping can take place without any kind of suspicion directed against any person prior to the eavesdropping.
The companies Swedish telecom TeliaSonera AB and Google Inc. and have called the measure the most far-reaching eavesdropping plan in Europe, comparable to a U.S. government program. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush granted intelligence officers the power to monitor without court approval, international calls and e-mails between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas. The Protect America Act, passed last July, extended that authority, but it expired Feb. 15 and a replacement law is being debated.
This is an inaccurate comparison. The Protect America Act was directed toward already known terrorists or identified suspects. The eavesdropping was limited to those individuals and their correspondence with people in America. The Swedish FRA Act has no such limitations. It allows the government to record, in real time, all correspondence, all phone calls, all faxes and internet habits, without any limitations at all.
The government rejects claims the law will give it unlimited powers to spy on its own citizens and maintains it will filter out domestic communications and is interested only in international traffic.
The law also gives the prime minister and his cabinet access to the material and broad discretion to search it. In other words: the prime minister can spy on political adversaries, critics of his administration etc., and do this without breaking any laws. To be blunt: the Watergate burglary has now been legalized in Sweden.
Four ruling coalition lawmakers forced additions to the bill, hoping the measures would protect individual privacy. But critics said the changes, which included monitoring by independent institutions, don't alter the fundamental problems with the law. "This is just as absurd as before," said Per Strom of The New Welfare Foundation think tank. "It will still create a society characterized by self-censorship and anxiety." The European Federation of Journalists argued that electronic monitoring of phone and e-mail communications contravenes international and European legal standards.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Sweden's Parliament narrowly approved a contentious law Wednesday that gives authorities sweeping powers to eavesdrop on all e-mail and telephone traffic that crosses the Nordic nation's borders. The right-leaning government's slim majority helped secure 143-138 approval, despite strong opposition from left-leaning parties led by Social Democrats.
What the story leaves out is that the law was originally conceived by the socialist prime minister Goran Persson back in 1995 after he had given an infamous speech, saying that "we shall all speak well of our country" and "I will personally stigmatize anyone who criticizes our country abroad". A pretty stark statement coming from a Western European prime minister. It is, unfortunately, indicative of what kind of politician Mr. Persson was. And he held on to his belief that it was somehow within his jurisdiction - his right, in fact - as a prime minister to spy on his citizens. So in 2004 his closest henchman, Par Nuder, and minister of justice, Thomas Bodstrom, finally wrote a law that allowed the government to use computer technology for unlimited surveillance of the population. (By that time computer technology had advanced to a level where they felt comfortable implementing a system of this type.) The center-right government has taken the idea and run with it, not realizing that they are carrying the water for the socialists who now will win the 2010 election based on their no to this law - a law that they will then keep in place and use against the very politicians who made it the law of the land.
Supporters argued the law — which takes effect in January — will provide a level of security against potential terrorists plotting attacks.
It is common practice in Sweden that once a law is passed it will be treated as the law of the land even if it is supposed to take effect at a later date. The only thing between the government and this surveillance system is, therefore, the installation of the computer hardware they will need. Which could already be there, for all we know.
But critics have slammed it as an invasion of privacy and an infringement on civil liberties. Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Parliament Wednesday, some handing out copies of George Orwell's famed "1984," dealing with a fictional police state. The new powers will give Swedish defense officials the right to scan international phone calls, e-mails and faxes for sensitive keywords without a court order.
Let us note, once again, that the FRA, which will run this wiretap system, is a branch of Sweden's military intelligence service. In other words, the military will be monitoring civilians with no suspicion of (civilian) criminal activity.
It is also important to add two things to the list of powers that the law grants the military:
a) They will be allowed to record anyone's and everyone's internet habits. Whatever websites you go to, they can now lawfully track that and compare your surfing habits to your e-mail correspondence, etc. Anything you say in chatrooms will also be recorded.
b) Newspapers are not exempt. Confidential informants are a thing of the past unless they use snail mail only as a means of contact.
All this wiretapping can take place without any kind of suspicion directed against any person prior to the eavesdropping.
The companies Swedish telecom TeliaSonera AB and Google Inc. and have called the measure the most far-reaching eavesdropping plan in Europe, comparable to a U.S. government program. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush granted intelligence officers the power to monitor without court approval, international calls and e-mails between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas. The Protect America Act, passed last July, extended that authority, but it expired Feb. 15 and a replacement law is being debated.
This is an inaccurate comparison. The Protect America Act was directed toward already known terrorists or identified suspects. The eavesdropping was limited to those individuals and their correspondence with people in America. The Swedish FRA Act has no such limitations. It allows the government to record, in real time, all correspondence, all phone calls, all faxes and internet habits, without any limitations at all.
The government rejects claims the law will give it unlimited powers to spy on its own citizens and maintains it will filter out domestic communications and is interested only in international traffic.
The law also gives the prime minister and his cabinet access to the material and broad discretion to search it. In other words: the prime minister can spy on political adversaries, critics of his administration etc., and do this without breaking any laws. To be blunt: the Watergate burglary has now been legalized in Sweden.
Four ruling coalition lawmakers forced additions to the bill, hoping the measures would protect individual privacy. But critics said the changes, which included monitoring by independent institutions, don't alter the fundamental problems with the law. "This is just as absurd as before," said Per Strom of The New Welfare Foundation think tank. "It will still create a society characterized by self-censorship and anxiety." The European Federation of Journalists argued that electronic monitoring of phone and e-mail communications contravenes international and European legal standards.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
SWEDEN SLOWLY SLIDING INTO ANARCHY
There is a daily stream of news from Sweden that tells the story of how the country is falling apart. An example from Dagens Nyheter, the big daily:
This summer about 125 patrol officers are going to have to be sufficient for the county of Norrbotten, one fourth of Sweden.
Norrbotten county is 20,500 square miles. The distance from the southernmost city with 70,000 residents to Kiruna up in the north is 214 miles. With 125 police officers available in total, the county will be patrolled by 25 police officers at any given time.
Imagine having 25 police officers patrolling the entire state of West Virginia. All the cities and towns, all the interstates and highways.
Sweden's police force has been shrinking steadily, and its resources removed by budget cuts, for a good two decades now. Large areas of the countryside lack police coverage altogether. Criminal gangs like the Hells Angels drive the police out of small rural towns and effectively take over. Even in big cities like Gothenburg there is a real turf war going on between the police and organized crime.
The end result of this process is widespread anarchy, which in turn will open the door for an outright totalitarian government to seize power.
This summer about 125 patrol officers are going to have to be sufficient for the county of Norrbotten, one fourth of Sweden.
Norrbotten county is 20,500 square miles. The distance from the southernmost city with 70,000 residents to Kiruna up in the north is 214 miles. With 125 police officers available in total, the county will be patrolled by 25 police officers at any given time.
Imagine having 25 police officers patrolling the entire state of West Virginia. All the cities and towns, all the interstates and highways.
Sweden's police force has been shrinking steadily, and its resources removed by budget cuts, for a good two decades now. Large areas of the countryside lack police coverage altogether. Criminal gangs like the Hells Angels drive the police out of small rural towns and effectively take over. Even in big cities like Gothenburg there is a real turf war going on between the police and organized crime.
The end result of this process is widespread anarchy, which in turn will open the door for an outright totalitarian government to seize power.
THE BLANKET WIRETAPPING BILL IS ALMOST THERE
This morning Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, sent blanket wiretapping bill, the FRA Act, back to the Defense Committee. There it was approved after its sponsors had added some new lipstick and padded up the bra. It is now back on the Riksdag's floor and approval is expected.
This law, again, gives Sweden's military intelligence service, the FRA, the right to wiretap without search warrant every e-mail account, every phone (landline as well as cellular), every fax and every internet server in the country. They are formally supposed to monitor communication across the nation's borders, but since it is practically impossible to put a wiretap at the physical border the FRA "has to" monitor all communication and then - at least according to the sponsors and supporters of this bill - concentrate on whatever is crossing the borders.
Because of how the FRA Act is designed, and because of the technical aspects of this kind of wiretapping, the effective consequence of the law is that the military intelligence service will be wiretapping all electronic communications of every private citizen in Sweden. Then they will search that communication for whatever search terms they want to apply to it. In order to do this they obviously have to tape it all and store it for the search process.
More importantly: the incumbent administration - the prime minister and his cabinet - will have the right to access the database that contains all the recorded communication. That gives them unprecedented opportunities to spy on political adversaries or individuals they simply do no like.
As the icing on the totalitarian cake, let us not forget who the private citizen is:
-The average family who calls or writes e-mails to friends, in Sweden or abroad;
-The student doing research for a senior thesis whose internet searches are being recorded by the FRA and then examined in detail;
-The newspaper, which relies on anonymous tips or confidential sources to uncover wrongdoings by the government, will no longer be able to grant anonymity to its sources;
-The private business that is considering making investments abroad that would lower taxes and expand business.
There are many scandals in Sweden's tarnished modern political history that would never have been uncovered if the government had been able to do this type of surveillance at that time. They would have found out about the informants and either shredded all evidence or simply bullied the source into silence.
The FRA Act will pass, but the opposition parties - the big socialists, the little socialists and the green socialists - will vote against it. Nobody should assume, though, that this means the law will be repealed if they win the 2010 election. The law was conceived by the former socialist prime minister, Goran Persson, who once said that he would "personally brand and stigmatize anyone who criticized Sweden abroad". His minister of justice, Thomas Bodstrom, wrote the bulk of the current law in 2004 with another former socialist cabinet member, Par Nuder. Only cosmetic differences exist between their version of this bill and the one that is now on its way to become law. Their opposition to this law is therefore only an expression of political tactics: they know this law is unpopular and they think they can ride on that sentiment in to a victory in the next election. Then, after they have been in office for four years, nobody will ever remember that the FRA Act even exists and they can use it to monitor their opposition.
Essentially, the center-right coalition is carrying the water for the socialists and will feel the pain as they are returned to their regular status as an opposition group in the parliament in 2010.
This law, again, gives Sweden's military intelligence service, the FRA, the right to wiretap without search warrant every e-mail account, every phone (landline as well as cellular), every fax and every internet server in the country. They are formally supposed to monitor communication across the nation's borders, but since it is practically impossible to put a wiretap at the physical border the FRA "has to" monitor all communication and then - at least according to the sponsors and supporters of this bill - concentrate on whatever is crossing the borders.
Because of how the FRA Act is designed, and because of the technical aspects of this kind of wiretapping, the effective consequence of the law is that the military intelligence service will be wiretapping all electronic communications of every private citizen in Sweden. Then they will search that communication for whatever search terms they want to apply to it. In order to do this they obviously have to tape it all and store it for the search process.
More importantly: the incumbent administration - the prime minister and his cabinet - will have the right to access the database that contains all the recorded communication. That gives them unprecedented opportunities to spy on political adversaries or individuals they simply do no like.
As the icing on the totalitarian cake, let us not forget who the private citizen is:
-The average family who calls or writes e-mails to friends, in Sweden or abroad;
-The student doing research for a senior thesis whose internet searches are being recorded by the FRA and then examined in detail;
-The newspaper, which relies on anonymous tips or confidential sources to uncover wrongdoings by the government, will no longer be able to grant anonymity to its sources;
-The private business that is considering making investments abroad that would lower taxes and expand business.
There are many scandals in Sweden's tarnished modern political history that would never have been uncovered if the government had been able to do this type of surveillance at that time. They would have found out about the informants and either shredded all evidence or simply bullied the source into silence.
The FRA Act will pass, but the opposition parties - the big socialists, the little socialists and the green socialists - will vote against it. Nobody should assume, though, that this means the law will be repealed if they win the 2010 election. The law was conceived by the former socialist prime minister, Goran Persson, who once said that he would "personally brand and stigmatize anyone who criticized Sweden abroad". His minister of justice, Thomas Bodstrom, wrote the bulk of the current law in 2004 with another former socialist cabinet member, Par Nuder. Only cosmetic differences exist between their version of this bill and the one that is now on its way to become law. Their opposition to this law is therefore only an expression of political tactics: they know this law is unpopular and they think they can ride on that sentiment in to a victory in the next election. Then, after they have been in office for four years, nobody will ever remember that the FRA Act even exists and they can use it to monitor their opposition.
Essentially, the center-right coalition is carrying the water for the socialists and will feel the pain as they are returned to their regular status as an opposition group in the parliament in 2010.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
BIG BROTHER IS HAVING A BALL
On Wednesday June 18 Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, was supposed to pass a law that will give the government absolutely uninhibited rights to wiretap every resident of the country. It was planned that the law, which gives the government a blanket right to wiretap anyone's e-mail, fax, cell phone or landline, would sail through the parliamentary process without any real problem. Instead, it will now be sent back to a parliamentary subcommittee for some semantic redrafting.
Then the members of the Riksdag will pass the bill smoothly and quietly. And once it has become the law of the land, Sweden's military intelligence service FRA will have a legal right to record and analyze all electronic communication between private citizens in Sweden - family or business makes no difference.
This bill, commonly referred to in Sweden as the FRA Act, is technically defined to allow the FRA to wiretap electronic correspondence that crosses the country's borders. But since it is virtually (no pun intended) impossible to wiretap internet-carried communication at the geographic border of a country, the wiretapping will take place within the country, at internet servers, fax machines, telephones etc. Only after this blanket wiretapping has taken place will the FRA, according to the statutes in this proposed law, single out international communication and analyze that. Obviously, that is not going to happen. The FRA will keep all its wiretap material and conduct whatever surveillance it wishes of the public.
Sweden's government will also have access to the material, with opportunities to do keyword searches for certain types of information.
The FRA Act is, of course, the most far reaching surveillance law in the free world. In fact, with this law Sweden takes the leap over the edge of the cliff and down into the abyss of totalitarianism. The purpose behind the law is, of course, not what the government has alleged, namely to catch terrorists in the tact. Sweden has never stood up against terrorists; the country's minuscule contributions to the military operations in Afghanistan have been kept to an absolute minimum and the Swedish armed forces are so pathetically ill equipped that they are having trouble even participating in joint EU operations. Sweden's socialist governments have sponsored terror groups like ANC, Hamas and PLO more generously than almost any other government. Then incumbent prime minister Goran Persson vehementely criticized the American-led liberation of Iraq.
After their victory in the 2006 election the center-right coalition has not changed any policies in this respect. So the claim that this law is needed to protect Sweden from imminent or even conceivable terror threats is ridiculous.
This true purpose behind the FRA Act becomes all the more obvious when we take into account that the bill was originally written by the socialist government back in 2004. The incumbent center-right government is barely any different in its policies from their socialist predecessors; in fact, they behave as though they are a bunch of substitutes while the socialists take a break and let a new generation rise to power. Therefore, they continue the socialist politics of the past with no real change in mind, let alone on the horizon. They are trying to copy the socialists in every relevant aspect. This law just happens to be part of the package.
Sweden is on a fast track to totalitarianism. Next on the agenda for Sweden's power elite is a re-writing of the constitution. The current one is 34 years old. Imagining what will come out of that re-writing is nightmare-inducing.
Then the members of the Riksdag will pass the bill smoothly and quietly. And once it has become the law of the land, Sweden's military intelligence service FRA will have a legal right to record and analyze all electronic communication between private citizens in Sweden - family or business makes no difference.
This bill, commonly referred to in Sweden as the FRA Act, is technically defined to allow the FRA to wiretap electronic correspondence that crosses the country's borders. But since it is virtually (no pun intended) impossible to wiretap internet-carried communication at the geographic border of a country, the wiretapping will take place within the country, at internet servers, fax machines, telephones etc. Only after this blanket wiretapping has taken place will the FRA, according to the statutes in this proposed law, single out international communication and analyze that. Obviously, that is not going to happen. The FRA will keep all its wiretap material and conduct whatever surveillance it wishes of the public.
Sweden's government will also have access to the material, with opportunities to do keyword searches for certain types of information.
The FRA Act is, of course, the most far reaching surveillance law in the free world. In fact, with this law Sweden takes the leap over the edge of the cliff and down into the abyss of totalitarianism. The purpose behind the law is, of course, not what the government has alleged, namely to catch terrorists in the tact. Sweden has never stood up against terrorists; the country's minuscule contributions to the military operations in Afghanistan have been kept to an absolute minimum and the Swedish armed forces are so pathetically ill equipped that they are having trouble even participating in joint EU operations. Sweden's socialist governments have sponsored terror groups like ANC, Hamas and PLO more generously than almost any other government. Then incumbent prime minister Goran Persson vehementely criticized the American-led liberation of Iraq.
After their victory in the 2006 election the center-right coalition has not changed any policies in this respect. So the claim that this law is needed to protect Sweden from imminent or even conceivable terror threats is ridiculous.
This true purpose behind the FRA Act becomes all the more obvious when we take into account that the bill was originally written by the socialist government back in 2004. The incumbent center-right government is barely any different in its policies from their socialist predecessors; in fact, they behave as though they are a bunch of substitutes while the socialists take a break and let a new generation rise to power. Therefore, they continue the socialist politics of the past with no real change in mind, let alone on the horizon. They are trying to copy the socialists in every relevant aspect. This law just happens to be part of the package.
Sweden is on a fast track to totalitarianism. Next on the agenda for Sweden's power elite is a re-writing of the constitution. The current one is 34 years old. Imagining what will come out of that re-writing is nightmare-inducing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)