.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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)