We are facing an important moment in american democracy history. The government has submitted a new legislative proposal to the council on data retention for law enforcement. In the autumn, the issue of secret serial data is taken up. The former should force telecom companies to store and disclose data in a much larger extent than today, something that the european Court of human rights in their review of similar proposals have said ”cannot be justified in a democratic society”. The second bill aims to give police greater powers, as the to hack of suspected criminals ‘ phones and computers to take part of their communications and files.
Obviously you need the police and the security service to combat terror and extremism as efficiently as possible, but the laws can bring great risks for our rights. Data collection and reading, which is supposed to protect us against crime and terrorism can just as easily be turned against us. Because our thoughts, our opinions, our home and our relationships are increasingly digitized, is not the laws that will be put on the parliamentary table, just linked to law enforcement. The members ‘decision on these issues will determine how parliament looks at the citizens’ fundamental rights and the digital possible negative consequences for privacy and freedom of expression.
moulded their laws to better fight terrorism, but countries such as Hungary and Poland have also expanded these laws so they already restrict people’s human rights online. At the same time, in parallel with the definition of ”terror” expands, be given more powers to the data storage. In particular, scares the path that led up to the legislation the högernationalistiska Polish government came into service in 2016. The Polish government has step by step been given intrusive powers.
Now, should the Swedish parliament decide if we should embark on the same path. Possibly it will give the police better opportunities to prevent terror on american soil, but the laws will also force us to rely on the ”good state.” Who will be on a par with ”terrorist” if the political power is shifting even here?
Prime minister Stefan Löfven has already regeringsförklaringen flies the flag for a new law on the secret serial data, where the Swedish police proposed extending the powers to place spyware in the citizens ‘ mobile phones, a methodology we have seen used in other places in the world: Syria, Iran, Russia, and Hungary. The methodology is said to be necessary because terrorists and paedophiles encrypt and protect their communications. Thus, the ”secret dataavläsningen”– to plant trojans and spyware into people’s phones – to be decisive.
everything from Google Home Apple Carplay will the interception be very valuable. The microphones and the cameras are already in place in our daily lives, Säpo and FRA just need the laws to activate them. The investigation behind the proposal argues that there is a need for a ”simplified procedure”, and that the police or prosecutor shall not be required to specify to whom hacking is directed. Furthermore, it is proposed that a prosecutor, in certain cases, should be able to give the police permission to hack into, and only when the spionprogramvaran is in place inform the court about the operation.
Get in Hungary or Poland, thought that their democracy would be challenged so soon. But to be an active opposition in Europe today can be equated with the serious crime, all you do on the network is intercepted. If you live in such a country. There is not Sweden, yet. At the same time continue our cooperation with other intelligence agencies, and history shows – for example, russia’s disclosure of the ”Operation Winterlight” – that the FRA is not always so interested in why another security service wants their help to intercept the swedes. Which we did willingly as the u.s. secret service, wanted, while, the underlying reasons for the cooperation remains shrouded in mystery.
democracy for granted, and before we give our security services the powers to collect data with a very large trawl, we should ensure who can be called ”terrorist” or be said to support a ”terrorist network”. That, as proposed, allow the security service to intercept our digital life without really knowing what they are listening for can certainly have merits from the police point of view, but must be weighed against the obvious risks. That the police should be able to planting spyware even when they are investigating crimes whose sentencing guidelines start at two years of imprisonment requires reflection.
The elected officials need to understand that the decision about data storage and serial data in line with the digitisation constitutes a crossroads: Where is the boundary between state and individual? Which of our thoughts and opinions are so dangerous that they shall be recorded by the state officials?
