Without Registration, Swedish Law Does Not Protect Wikileaks Sources

An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks, which currently stores a lot of their material on servers in Sweden, may not be as safe there as once believed. From the above linked article (from April): "Wikileaks is benefiting form Sweden's basic law 'Grundlag' on the freedom of print information, because it also guarantees the anonymity of sources in digital media, say sources at the European Parliament. In Sweden, if a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief, then it can also be protected under the law, argues the parliamentary source." Says the anonymous submtter, "However, it seems Wikileaks never registered with the public authorities (article in Swedish; here it is auto-translated to English), and thus is not protected by the freedom of print information basic law even if they do have an editor-in-chief."

Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into print

[Anonymous Coward]

WL exists because the sources are anonymous, not because the sources are protected by law. Registration is just a way to denote a person who takes the blame instead of the source. It doesn't relieve the publication from blame, it shifts it. That's not the point of WL. The concept behind Wikileaks isn't journalism, it's making raw information available. It's in the name, you know? If Wikileaks were to be taken offline by any country, servers in other countries are ready to replace them. If push comes to shove, there's Freenet.

Re:So register

[jopsen]

I would guess that the law also says that the editor in chief is responsible for the content published...

Re:"Grundlag"

[arth1]

It literally means Sweden's constitution.

No, it literally means "ground law". It actually is the constitution.

I don't normally bother pointing out the difference between literally and actually, but when "literally" is used when explaining what a word means, some precision is required.

Re:FUD

[ToasterMonkey]

"An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks..."

Sounds like FUD.

Right, how can we trust this isn't disingenuous propaganda if we don't know who they are or at least some context?
Mr anonymous should post this info to WikiLeaks so we know it's accurate, THEN we can discuss what to think of it on enlightening Internet forums like this one. /sarcasm

Election

[foods]

Sweden is having an election to the parliament in september. My guess is that there will be no action on the Wikileaks server before that. The ruling parties would lose lots of votes if that happened. That is actually what happened with the Pirate Bay police action. A lot of Swedes thought it was pressure from American politicians that lead up to the action, which led to the Pirate Party's success in the election of the European Parliament.

Re:Why do they need this?

[ultranova]

Well, if a given organization calls for stricter control of Wikileaks, the chances are that whatever they have published lately is true.

More cynically, the more malicious stupidity some document contains, the more likely it is to be true. Love makes fools, marriage cuckolds, and patriotism malevolent imbeciles.