Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government News

Sweden On Verge of Passing Sweeping Wiretap Plan 234

An anonymous reader writes "No one seems to have noticed that Sweden is close to passing a far-reaching wiretapping program that would greatly expand the government's spying capabilities by permitting it to monitor all email and telephone traffic coming in and out of the country. If a bill before parliament becomes law, the country's National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) will monitor all internet traffic that passes in or out of the country. As the article notes, there's a good chance email traveling from, say, the UK to Finland would be fair game, since it's likely to traverse through Sweden before reaching its final destination. So far, there's been nary a peep from Swedish media about the plan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sweden On Verge of Passing Sweeping Wiretap Plan

Comments Filter:
  • by remahl ( 698283 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:05AM (#23665019)
    This has nothing at all to do with Pirate Bay. This is NSA-style wiretapping. The evidence gathered can (supposedly) not be used in regular criminal investigations for copyright infringement.
  • Sweden? wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeeverNO@SPAMnerdshack.com> on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:11AM (#23665069)
    *reads article*

    Oh, just another out-of-control power grab, no doubt MAFIAA approved, with a healthy side-dose of "fuck you" to privacy.
  • by miffo.swe ( 547642 ) <daniel@hedblom.gmail@com> on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:16AM (#23665107) Homepage Journal
    "The evidence gathered can (supposedly) not be used in regular criminal investigations for copyright infringement."

    When the US put pressure on Sweden for ThePirateBay Swedish authorities happily broke multiple laws and smiled about it. I have no doubts that any information about petty things like small time copyright infringement will be handed over.
  • Doesn't screaming "1984" at the top of your lungs every single time technology and government occur in the same context ever get tiring? At least read some other dystopian books and put some variety in the alarmism!

    C'mon, let's give some airtime to Hiro Protagonist and Bernard Marx at least. That's more where this kind of shit is headed to...
  • is this attitude on slashdot: shocked, shocked i tell you, that a governmental organization is not going to protect my information for me

    encrypt if you don't want it snooped on. if it goes out on the wire, it is prone to being intercepted and snooped on, by the government or someone else. you realize that, right? so where is all the shock and amazement coming from that a government is doing what governments always do?

    i'm not saying you don't have a right to privacy. i'm saying you are absurd if you rely on a government organization to protect your privacy for you. regardless of the law. YOU need to protect your privacy. you can't expect the government to do that competently, regardless of the law. and then, in a forum populated with a bunch of people supposedly experienced enough with the subject matter, to come from this position of complete naivete on the subject?

    all i am saying is that its just kind of disingenuous for a lot of you, who to start from the default position of healthy distrust of government... to suddenly express shock and amazement at a government trying to snoop on you. this is a new concept to you? you're not jaded and cynical at this point, as you SHOULD be on the subject matter of governments and snooping if you have any awareness of the subject matter? folks: your shock and amazement is only possible if massive trust in government is your default position. you see the absurdity in that, right?

    "omg! my government wants to spy on me? the idea never occured to me!"

    really?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:42AM (#23665237)
    This "kind of shit" is about a surveillance society, and neither Brave New World nor Snow Crash is about that. It's true that always hearing about 1984 is getting tiresome, but unfortunately there is not a lot of other (popular) novels that put a strong emphasis on this subject. The sad truth is sci-fi is mostly interested in "cool" technology (even if this pseudo technology is absurd) rather than political ideas.
  • by init100 ( 915886 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:48AM (#23665283)

    Swedes are pretty used to governmental control and oversight, and we acually enjoy the benefits of it.

    Such as?

    Our trust in authoroty of this kind is strong since it have served us well in the past.

    You mean your trust. I, for one, do not trust them anymore than any other government. And in what instance did it serve us well in the past?

  • by asackett ( 161377 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @04:58AM (#23665327) Homepage
    I know it's a pipe dream, but if enough of us would encrypt everything we can that crosses the internet we could vote with our resource consumption and force the bastards to be selective about what they decrypt. Our individual privacy would thus be somewhat assured by the signal to noise ratio.
  • by steelneck ( 683359 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @05:24AM (#23665447)
    So you are not visiting other sites than encrypted ones? People seem to forget that aspect, what sites you are visiting is often more sensitive than what info you transmit. Think of those times you are searching the net for something, drowning in irrelevant hits, visiting sites just to discover it did not contain what you where looking for. The state cannot see what you thought of the page you just where visiting, the only see that you requested and got it sent to you. So, do not visit wrong pages in the future, that can be used against you.
  • And in what instance did it serve us well in the past?
    He is probably referring to the incident in Ã...dalen 1931, when the heroic forces of truth managed to stop a full-scale terrorist attack on healthy Swedish family values.
  • by mmcuh ( 1088773 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @05:35AM (#23665515)

    From what I've heard the snoops care more about who is talking to who than about what's actually being said. Mapping social networks and all that.

    So in addition to encryption, we would all have to run anonymising proxies, such as Tor or Freenet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:03AM (#23665639)
    In sweden there is no such legal concept as "fruit from the bad tree". That is, any evidence (gathered regardless if a search was lawfull or not, will hold in court. Single police officers may loose their jobs, but the evidence found still hold.

    Not that I think these laws will be passed to please the music and movie industries, but they could certainly use any evidence passed to them from this perfect, ever watching organization.

  • WTF?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:05AM (#23665649)
    This is SWEDEN! Since when has IT been a hotbed for terrorists or drug dealers? Middle-eastern terrorists moving to the cold sub-arctic climate of Scandinavia? Drug lords from the Columbian jungles? Not bloody likely.

    It can't be militarily inspired either; Sweden is "non aligned" and has (officially) maintained a neutral stance in all wars for (nearly) the last 200 years, and they are not a party to NATO or a similar organization/treaty. Sweden has, in fact, the longest tenure of neutrality of any country in the world (yes, that includes Switzerland).

    So, they're going to wage war against, and gather enormous amounts of intelligence on, its own citizens, instead? Are they going to raise the already highest tax rates in the world to pay for this needless Britain-esque surveillance?

    This has nothing to do with terrorists or drugs, and everything to do with copyright "enforcement" and having more "legal" ways to gather data on Pirate Bay, their users, and other services that may set up shop there. There's no other plausible explanation.

  • by SwedishPenguin ( 1035756 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:07AM (#23665657)

    One member of parliament (Fredrick Federley) who was elected on a privacy platform, among other issues, abstained from voting and took so much heat from his party that he'll be voting yes this time around.
    What a f*cking coward..
    The only parites that have had a consitently negative attitude towards this proposal has been the left party and the greens. One of the will get my vote in the next election.
  • Tit for tat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:33AM (#23665757)

    The United States has already said that pretty much any private communication it can get hold of is fair game. Does anybody have the feeling that a lot of other countries are responding by taking the view that, "If you read my mail, I"m sure as hell going to read yours."

  • The base is: Citizens are allowed to do anything not forbidden, for the state it is the other way around, anything they do must be allowed by law first.

    My God, if only Americans understood the US Constitution as well as you do, with that statement.
  • Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by odourpreventer ( 898853 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:49AM (#23665837)

    This is SWEDEN! Since when has IT been a hotbed for terrorists or drug dealers?

    File it under "delusions of grandeur". Our politicos like to think that Sweden is important enough to be considered a terrorist target.

    Sweden is "non aligned" and has (officially) maintained a neutral stance

    "Officially", yes. Practically, not so much. We (the government, that is) bend over for the guy with the biggest guns, and have done so since World War One.

  • by steelneck ( 683359 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @06:54AM (#23665857)
    It is not absurd when looked upon from a power perspective. Yes google can see any searches i do, but they wont see what i do at yahoo, so can site owners and most important, neither google, yahoo or any site owner has any way near the power to hurt me as my govenment has. Is is about the trust of the messenger, the same goes for the old postal service, snail-mail. This trust comes from the law. Today it is illegal to eavesdrop on private communication, this is what ISPs earn their trust from. The trusted part is allways the one who can hurt you the most, since you do not allow any info in the hands of the untrusted. This bill is forcing the owners of nodes to copy everything, even ordinary phone calls, to FRA for further analysis. This breakes the postal secret and the messengers trust. The anology is that the post office opens all letters but only looks closer on those meeting some criteria. The invasion of privacy is not in the first place to be looked upon closer, it is when the letters are opened by someone other than the reciever. The government should be transparent, not citizens. All countries where the opposite have been true, have been very nasty places to live in. In the seventies we had a scandal uncovered where the top suits in the byggest political party had created their own police who registered people. This had the result that many people that just happend to at the wrong place at wrong time got secretly blacklisted from job offerings, careers and some government services open to the rest of the society, in secret. Blacklisted people did not know, they did not have any way of defending them self. Half shut out from the society. This bill opens up for more of that, this is also exactly the reason behind the basic principles of human rights. To protect citizens from the regime, not protecting citizens from citizens or heaven forbid, protecting states from citizens. Citizens should be allowed to do anything not forbidden, for the state the opposite is true, it is not allowed to do anything without support in the law. This bill is creating a law-support governments should not have. Because as a citizen you cannot escape the government. So the trust will be lost. I will take the consequences if this bill gets passed. It is very sad, i will stop using the net completley, stop all my participation in communitys and program developing, no more mails. Shure i will miss it, but this is the end. I will not miss cellphones, because i have never owned one. In my 25 year working career i have never owned credit card either, so that i can do without in the future too. But the Internet i will miss. As i see it, they (actually the straussistic USA) demolished the library of Alexsandria once again. The end.
  • Potential For Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @07:48AM (#23666097)
    I personally think that this law might actually be a good thing. Due to the networked nature of the Internet, Sweden will be opening everyone's mail, not just the mail of their citizens. As a result, you might find that this prompts people to start truly using some decent encryption. If there was a sudden rise in encryption, individuals defending themselves might make this entire argument a moot point. If it takes a few dozen NASA (or Sweden's equivalent) super computers a few weeks to crack an e-mail, that fairly well rules out mass snooping.

    The obvious counter is to make encryption without a back door illegal. With mobile open source projects which can set up home in any nation (or no nation) though, I think that the governments ability to enforce such absurdity would be rendered impotent.
  • by plover ( 150551 ) * on Thursday June 05, 2008 @08:22AM (#23666351) Homepage Journal

    This isn't America were you have coherent government.
    Thanks; if I had been drinking anything, I would have laughed it out of my nose when I read this!

    think "how would a government react if the president were republican, the vice president democratic, the secretary of state republican, ...".
    But that's not exactly how it works in America. When the powers are split between the parties (executive is one party, senate and/or house is a different party) then they accomplish nothing at all; and I learned long ago that gridlock is how the founding fathers assured we would preserve stability in our laws.

    In other words you get the combined downsides of all parties : massive taxes (democrat), sweeping investigative powers (rep.), no freedom of speech (dem.), direct judicial interference by unions (dem.), ...
    Ah. Gridlock avoids that particular downside quite well. The only way much change happens is when one party really controls both the legislature and the executive. We kind of saw that here in the US when Bush took office and both houses of Congress were controlled by his party. They did some republican agenda things like passing popular tax cuts, but refused to accept the unpopular responsibility of cutting government spending. (So we've been generating a huge deficit ever since he came into power, essentially financing the Iraq war on the promise that if I ever have grandchildren they will pay it back.)

    So now the US is on the verge of "throwing the bums out" again. I guess it's not 100% hopeless for those of us who are fans of gridlock: the Democrats who are poised to take power have much internal squabbling and no coherent direction other than "away from George Bush", and can barely agree on anything themselves, so I'm not too worried that they'll pass much of their crazy platform either.

  • by jo42 ( 227475 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @08:27AM (#23666383) Homepage

    fix: frankly change from my own domain to GMail
    The naivety of that statement is profound. Give the US and an evil mega-corp. easy access to your email? No thanks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2008 @09:42AM (#23667279)

    The obvious counter is to make encryption without a back door illegal.

    Agreed.

    With mobile open source projects which can set up home in any nation (or no nation) though, I think that the governments ability to enforce such absurdity would be rendered impotent.

    I can see the obvious counter to that, and I don't like it at all. Thy will just make open source illegal, programming or asking about programming will be on par with e.g. chemistry, explosives, weaponry, ... today. In the end, you will be only free if you are computer-free, and then again, "the Man" will keep an around-the-clock eye on you because you avoid expressing yourself ergo you gotta be some kind of terrorist (unless you have medical report of having a mental condition).

    You see, laying down before oppressor's tanks doesn't stop them if they don't care. Likewise, if we fight to keep our freedom, and use another freedom as a weapon (or an armor) we may as well lose both freedoms ... and none will care. Stupid masses of consumers, human cattle belonging to global corporations' herders, won't even know that there was once free software, even less so that it was important for anything.

    Sometimes, a great tree falls down, and you can not save it from falling, you would get killed if you try to hold it from falling down, so you just step aside. One day, very far in the future, another tree will grow up to be as great as fallen was. Each tyranny ends in rot, eventually, if it cannot be ended by heroic deeds. If we choose today not to confront vigorously, not to give excuse to get struck down on a point which is of very little majority-perceived public interest, all that Big Brother nonsense will grow into bloat and die out from too much expense and gradually getting on nerves of increasingly too many "ordinary" (non-nerd) people.

    For those with cheaper tickets, in short, this is the end of an era. It will come back, but not in our lifetime. And now something completely different ...
  • by pacinpm ( 631330 ) <pacinpm@gm a i l .com> on Thursday June 05, 2008 @09:53AM (#23667433)

    The obvious counter is to make encryption without a back door illegal. With mobile open source projects which can set up home in any nation (or no nation) though, I think that the governments ability to enforce such absurdity would be rendered impotent.
    I disagree. All they need to do is put those who USE such tools into jail. Location from those tools got downloaded doesn't matter at all. If such tools are illegal (their use is illegal) YOU will go to to jail - not the one who wrote those tools.
  • by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @10:02AM (#23667587) Journal
    So when you said:

    European governments are utterly blocked and halted things. They never do anything.

    You actually meant "they manage to do everything all at once, even the contradictory things, thus making most of what they do meaningless"? Because "they never do anything" implies that none of these laws get passed (which is what happens in the US when the parties are evenly balanced), but you're saying now that they just ALL get passed and because of that nothing works.

    And this is because the Ministers of various things are free to act in whatever way suits their party without approval by Parliament, is that right? (Just trying to understand how this works. In the US, you do have different departments that can do some things autonomously, but in the end they all still answer to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court and many of their ideas/proposals have to be directly approved by Congress. For instance, the Dept of Education couldn't just declare No Child Left Behind to be official policy, Congress had to approve it.)

  • by Man On Pink Corner ( 1089867 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @11:53AM (#23669127)
    you can't have it both ways friend. either the government is well-behaved, or it isn't. you can't expect good behavior (they will respect my rights) at the same time you expect bad behavior (they will rape my rights). it's one or the other

    No, it isn't even remotely that simple. Governments change. "Behaviors" which were benign under one regime may not be so benign under the next, or after a particularly spectacular national trauma removes previously-accepted constraints. When you allow those behaviors to be encoded into law, they are much more difficult to remedy when they are eventually abused.

    You sound like one of those Free Republic types who defend the Bush Administration's endless expansions-by-fiat of executive power. I really wish those people would have had the chance to stand aside, powerless, while the same rationalizations were employed by Hillary Clinton. Maybe then they'd have remembered why they they joined the Republican party in the first place.
  • by MSZ ( 26307 ) on Thursday June 05, 2008 @12:03PM (#23669287)

    state funded mandatory vaccinations

    Do you realize, that "state funded" means "paid with remains of the money taken from the citizens (after most of it were wasted)"?

    Back to the topic - it seems Sweden had a great luck and avoided the kind of scum most countries have in their governments. It's not only USA where people distrust their rulers, and most of the time rightly so.

    You've been lucky, but can you be sure it will continue? I'm not American yet I share a belief that the governemt should not know too much about it's subjects. Too much knowledge causes abuse, both small by some official and big, by the state itself. Besides, most of these thing they do not need to know - your health is your business and it should be a secret between you and your doctor, not something any petty clerk could look up when he's bored - like it happened not so long ago in Ireland.

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...