.jpg)
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.
Monday, June 30, 2008
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)