Not surprisingly, this act is part of anti-terrorism legislation, seeking to protect Swedish citizens by stopping terrorist activity and plotting leading up to a strike. But the legislation has - also not surprisingly - run into a wall of criticism, with some commentators predicting the fall of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. Basically all major newspapers in Sweden have spoken out against the legislation. Even though the wiretapping is only intended for communication running across the border, some critics say it is in practice impossible to differentiate between international calls and calls between Swedish citizens. Also, the international criticism is stark: the Finnish government has sent an official protest to the Swedes. Here in Norway, many are speaking up against the law, but the Government has not as of yet sent any official protest. Mainly Venstre (the Left Party) is speaking up, saying the Government is too passive and demanding some action and protest against the act. The act is negating Norwegians' and other non-Swedes' rights with regards to surveillance. Also, Norwegian business is being affected by the law and the surveillance of their activity. Recently, the Norwegian branch of the International Commission of Legal Professionals has filed a suit against the Swedish State at the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. This has been widely supported in Norway.
This issue digs right into that post 9-11 debate of wether we should allow some infringement on our rights for the State to be better able to protect us against terrorists. As many, among them mr Barack Obama, have pointed out, this is a false choice. In the fight against terrorism, these are the rights and values we should be protecting, not limiting. By broadening the State's surveillance of citizens, we are heading the wrong way: towards an East German Stasi system where anyone the least bit suspect in the State's eyes (i.e. everyone) was secretly wiretapped with thick and growing folders filling up Government file-cabinets, just in case they might be up to something..
1 comment:
Why listen in to phone conversations or read e-mails?
I wonder whether some "terrorist" who planned to do something violent against the state of Sweden or Norway would use a phone or an e-mail in order to carry on their planning business. It would seem to me that they should already be suspicious of phones and putting anything in writing.
Therefore, I am suspicious of this argument to justify these wiretaps.
Our President Obama voted to allow telecommunications companies here to tap all phone and e-mail communications, even at a time when such behavior was illegal. We were suspicious of Bush doing this because we could not believe he would limit his wiretapping to what anyone would call a terrorist. So, we all assume he's tapping his political opposition. He's tapping the phones of politically sensitive individuals and organizations hoping to gather enough information to blackmail them at some yet to be determined time in the future.
There's always the chance that someone could gather some information that could be made profitable.
Beyond the real possibility that wiretapping will be used against people who have nothing to do with terrorism, the fact that they set this precident gives them an argument to go further.
I suspect that at some time in the future the government of Sweden will want to open or x-ray and read any and all materials going into or out of Sweden. The problems here are the same with phone and e-mail trafic. The potential for abuse is great.
There is a principle in law enforcement that as a cop, you want to have some petty nuisance laws that you can use against people to stop them. You stop them for a small turn signal that's out so you can look over their car to see if they are breaking some other law. You also do it so you can plant evidence on people so that you can harrass folks who you otherwise would not get a chance to harrass.
I guess I agree with your left party that these invasions of privacy do not make people safe.
Post a Comment