Sweden's Snoop Law Targets Russia

praps writes "There's been much controversy lately over Sweden's new law which allows the signal intelligence agency (FRA) to monitor all data traffic within the country's borders. The Swedish government has kept curiously quiet about the new law's objectives but sources close to the intelligence community say that Russia is the prime target. '"80 percent of Russia's contacts with large parts of the world travel through cables in Sweden. That is the core of the issue," said one source.'" Related: EuroConcerned writes "Many things are happening in Sweden after the new legislation on wiretapping has been voted. TorrentFreak has an article on what's going on, including massive protests and Google moving their servers away from the country."

Comments

now that's funny

[negRo_slim]

FTFA:

His email was leaked to the press by another party colleague and Andrén was later heard on a recorded phone-call exclaiming that his secrecy of correspondence had been broken and that it was âoeGestapo methodsâ. Dude, you just voted for a bill that allows all emails to be read and all phone calls to be recorded. Live with it!

I am glad to see their politicians are as inept as my politicians!

Re:now that's funny

[Opportunist]

I was thinking about the same. Personally, I'd want that person removed from his office. He voted quite obviously on a bill he neither read, understood, nor understood the implications thereof. How the fuck does he DARE to vote on it?

Seriously, if politicians had to survive in private business, they'd be fired on the spot.

Re:now that's funny

[init100]

He voted quite obviously on a bill he neither read, understood, nor understood the implications thereof.

He isn't the only one. Another one literally said I like signals intelligence, so although I really don't know anything about this bill, I'll vote Yes.

The stupidity is staggering.

Re:now that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the recent batch of US warheads has created a large ineptness gap. The EU must seek to close it.

Re:now that's funny

[cstdenis]

I think you are massively underestimating the incompetence of private business.

Re:now that's funny

[electrostaticcarrot]

I am glad to see their politicians are as inept as my politicians!

Given that the politician in question is a politician, how is that a surprise?

Re:now that's funny

[ceoyoyo]

I used to think that phrase meant something. Then I realized how many completely incompetent people there are in private industry.

Re:now that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

In a Swedish tv-program called Uppdrag Granskning (I believe -- may have been another program), a journalist walked around and asked politicians about the propositions they'd voted for.

I don't believe a single one of them actually knew what they were voting for.

Seriously, they don't read them. They don't care. I kind of doubt any other "democracy" works any differently.

It pisses me off to no end.

(No, I didn't vote for any of them).

Re:now that's funny

[Ethanol-fueled]

And the even greater incompetence of the proles who support them.

Re:now that's funny

[Nex]

In a Parliamentary System it's generally easier for an mp or a rep to vote the party line because in most cases they haven't any choice in the matter; there's less need to understand exactly what they're voting for because Mommy Party takes care of all.

In the US system, generally reps are freer to vote against their party and forge alliances across party lines even on major legislation, so knowledge of bills is often more important for the individual rep. Of course many reps vote the straight party line anyway, but at least there's more independence and choice. Nex

Re:now that's funny

[Opportunist]

Sorry, but when I decide on something that is against the interests of my employer (remember, politicians are essentially our employees), and when asked why I decided that way my answer is "no idea, I don't have the foggiest about the thingamajig, but it sounded cool", what will my employer do?

Re:now that's funny

[Opportunist]

Now, I wouldn't read too much into a program like this. When they show 10 politicians who make a complete fool out of themselves because they don't even know what the agenda is, it can just as well mean that they interviewed 200 and 190 knew exactly what's going on.

The media lie, the politicians lie. The sign of a democracy is when they tell different lies.

Re:now that's funny

[Elldallan]

There is a very simple reason for this. In Sweden if you're a MOP you're expected to vote for the party line whatever that is regardless of your own opinions if you don't your political career will pretty much be over. Hence they don't care much about whatever they're voting on, they just have to know what the party line is and vote accordingly.
On paper each MOP when elected gets a personal mandate to vote his own opinion and whenever there's a discussion about that all the parties proclaim how good it is that we have personal mandates so that the members can vote THEIR opinions. But in reality the parties hate the personal mandate and do their best to ignore it and whip party members back in line whenever somone sticks their nose out.

Re:now that's funny

[Alinabi]

Of course many reps vote the straight party line anyway, but at least there's more independence and choice

I'm not sure what is the difference between a parliamentary system and the "US system" you are referring to, but I am sure that the reson people don't usually go against the party line in either is that the votes are not secret.

Re:now that's funny

[Nex]

It's one of the main differences between the two systems. The Parliamentary system is - grosso modo - the interaction between parties, while in the US system you have much more of an interaction between individual mps or reps who happen to belong to parties. It's one reason why you have fewer parties in the legislative bodies in the US; less need as a wide spectrum of views is already represented by individual reps who form temporary issue-driven alliances on the fly with members of the opposing party, some of whom may *also* be at loggerheads with their own party agenda. Nex

Re:now that's funny

[Alinabi]

If you honestly believe that the people in the US congress hold "a wide spectrum of views", you need to take a closer look at other parliaments out there. As a foreigner living in the US, I often get asked by my friends about the ideological differences between republicans and democrats and I am stumped by that question. The only significant difference that I can detect is that the republicans are rather ambivalent about the separation of church and state.

Re:now that's funny

[Nex]

Then all I can tell you is: put your glasses on, throw some light and *look*. There's a wide spectrum there. Few people actually listen to the speakers in the House or Senate. They use Brian Williams, or Time, or the NYT to digest it all for them. What comes out the other end is agenda-driven pap much of the time.

Since you've used the experience card, I shall too: I've lived in several Euro Countries, for years. I've followed debates in the national assembly of France in French, and of course Parliament in the UK. News in Dutch, and so on. It's all about parties and the power plays between them. Sometimes smaller parties form alliances whereas in the US often reps will do the same thing Not under the whip of their own parties. Big difference. Spectrum of opinion? About the same as here. Less labels here though. No need to hunt for a name everytime 6 people get together for coffee and cognac. Narrow band of opinion in Congress? Pshaw! Listen to what they say, where they say they stand and how they vote.

Maxine Waters is just one example of the 'out there' wing of the democratic party (The CIA purposely seeded and maintained the 80's crack epidemic in LA to keep black folks down, the CIA invented and disseminated aids to victimize black people). The Troothers with their dark theories. The hysterical bunch at the KOS Kids. All the above views are ardently (inasmuch as a pol can be truly ardent in anything but ambition) supported in Congress by various Reps and Senators. Views that contrast sharply with those of other members of their party. Compare Harry Reid for example with another democrat, Lieberman. Too many examples to ignore. Just in the last few days, look who voted what on the recent FISA bill. Feinstein for, Clinton against. Whoosh? Where were you? The RIAA debate, and on and on and on. All the same? Methinks not.

Yet those facile, self-serving Euro stereotypes prevail *among Europeans* in the main. Look a little closer and they fall apart. Everybody's an expert, but look closer and the myths fade away. Forest, trees.

Alinabi, get specific, look closer, absorb, understand and get some perspective. Don't waste your valuable time in this country warbling sad old stereotypes while seeing .. very little. Nex

Re:now that's funny

[Alinabi]

Since you've used the experience card, I shall too: I've lived in several Euro Countries, for years. I've followed debates in the national assembly of France in French, and of course Parliament in the UK. News in Dutch, and so on.

You are a real polyglot. Do you also speak Finnish? How about Hungarian?

Compare Harry Reid for example with another democrat, Lieberman.

Last time I checked Lieberman was an independent (one of only two in the Senate).

Maxine Waters is just one example of the 'out there' wing of the democratic party

Those are outliers. Every European parliament has its Ron Pauls and Maxine Waters too (Jean-Marie Le Pen and Alessandra Mussolini come to mind). That is not what I am talking about. When I think of ideology, I mean those core issues which a person or a party does not consider open for compromise. Here is an example: in 1999 the German Green Party was part of the governing coalition (with the Social-Democrats) at the time when Germany dispatched troops abroad for the first time since WWII, as part of the NATO deployment in Kosovo. This triggered a wave a mass resignations in the party, as nonviolence is one of the core issues of Green politics and many of its members did not see it as open for compromise. The party was also punished by its electorate in the next cycle of local elections

Now, you tell me which issues could trigger such cataclysmic events among Republicans or Democrats, and then we can discuss their differences, because everything else is just circumstantial.

solution to these sorts of problems

[suck_burners_rice]

My plan to fight this sort of thing:

1. Profit!!!

2. Buy a large island and form a new government on it, which cannot pass any laws without approval by 50% of the public (not 50% of voters but 50% of the island's population) in a vote, which takes place once per year.

3. ???

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[Alzheimers]

That only works as long as you're greater than 50% of the population.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[mr_mischief]

I'm not sure how a discussion about how out of touch the politicians who pass laws like this have to be and how full-time professional politicians are bad for society gets modded off-topic, even if it is formatted as a typical joke.

The whole problem with a law like this is that people are getting paid to sit around full-time and think about how to have an impact on the lives of others. Many of the problems in the world are because politicians have too much impact on the daily lives of others. Obstructionism in government preserves the freedom of the people.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Right ... you must not know how dumb people are. If you think voters are dumb....have you seen women

Of course he hasn't you insensitive clod. Just where would he see them? You know they don't have those in his parent's basement and there are none on the intarweb either.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[koma77]

It was the _opposition_ that first proposed this law. Then after the election, a shift of government and: the same law gets passed. Nice.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[clarkkent09]

So those who don't vote are counted as a "No" vote? That seems as arbitrary as counting them as "Yes"

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[LandDolphin]

IF the law(whatever) does not pass, then everything stays the way it is; when it passes things change. Because of that, a 'No" vote from non-voters is a better choice then a "yes" vote, because it works to keep things the way they are; no change.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[JesseMcDonald]

So those who don't vote are counted as a "No" vote? That seems as arbitrary as counting them as "Yes".

Not if your goal is to require proof of majority support before changing the status quo. I would say it's reasonable to leave things as they are unless most people actively demonstrate a desire for change; otherwise unrepresentative vocal minorities end up making all the decisions.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[suck_burners_rice]

Thank you! I didn't understand that either... especially since I was innovative enough to move the Profit! to step 1 and the ??? to step 3. But yes, I really think that requiring 50% support from the entire country to put laws into effect is a good idea, since, as you can see, government dudes and dudettes sit around all day dreaming up new laws, the result being that in the United States to use this country as an example, tens of thousands of new laws (at least) are put into effect every year if you count all levels of government from the local to the federal. The presence of a law usually means that you can't do one or more things, and laws don't get taken off the books very often, so sooner or later, you won't be able to take a piss without breaking a law somewhere. It's all fine and dandy that in an ideal world, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people means that the people are monitoring their government, but when it comes down to it, most people prefer to live their lives, leave the governing to the government, and then they wake up one day and find out that there are no more liberties because there are a billion laws forbidding everything, regulating everything, and taxing everything. A system like I mentioned means one of two things will happen: If people actively participate, it means that laws that have the public's support will get passed while others don't (never mind how smart or dumb the public is; you can't control that, but you at least know that something has their support), or if enough people don't actively participate, the government can sit around writing laws as thick as phone books and none of them will actually become law. I think that in the end, people will go to the polls for important issues, issues that most people believe affect them personally, while they'll avoid going for unimportant issues.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[Wildclaw]

Better than having 0,004% of the population decide what is best for you. Or far less than that if you look at how top run some of these political parties are.

The tyranny of the majority is never used as anything but an excuse to implement a tyranny of the minority.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[clarkkent09]

So if a question is posed as "Do you want to change things?" then not voting is seen as wanting to keep things as they are. If the question is posed as "Do you want to keep things as they are?" then not voting is a vote in favor of change?

I'd say a no vote most reasonably means "I'll go with whatever you guys who vote decide"

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[LandDolphin]

"I'll go with whatever you guys who vote decide" - To get that, then you'd have to only count votes of those that voted. But his system is based around needing 50% of all the people, not just those who care enough about the issues to show up to a vote. Sure, it's a flawed system. but within the concept of his system, it makes more since for a non-vote to equal "no" then "yes".

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[Zontar The Mindless]

He's obviously never been to Sweden, this much is certain.

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[HJED]

you could make voting compulsory other wise it isn't realy a democracy

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[pipingguy]

Psst: the REAL intercept is not in Sweden. Don't tell anybody, K?

Re:solution to these sorts of problems

[eikonos]

And you can only vote once you've answered a relevant skill-testing question that shows you have some knowledge and understanding of the subject being voted on.

Excellent

[dahitokiri]

It's good to know people aren't sitting back and are actually protesting this law in person. Americans could probably learn something from that... Google checking out of the country definitely packs a punch too, even if there isn't much of an economic impact.

Re:Excellent

[jeiler]

May not be much of an economic impact, but it's one hell of a PR impact.

Re:Excellent

[spyrochaete]

Yes and no. They've still got tons of hosting in the US which is subject to the PATRIOT Act. This reason alone is why Canadian businesses refuse to use Google Apps for their businesses. This is more of a "sticking with the devil you know" kind of situation, I think.

Re:Excellent

[jeiler]

I was referring to the PR impact against the Swedish government. Sorry for the confusion.

Quad-Partison Decision

[PainMeds]

From TFA, "It is now obvious that the legislation was a deal made between the leaders of the four government parties without full support, even from within their own ranks"

Being that we only have two parties in the US, and wiretapping bills are getting passed around like cheap hookers, I suspect Sweden will be a good case study for the future of telecommunications monitoring here in the states. Our government now can see that another government could get away with something like this, so it likely won't be long before more "workarounds" to the fourth amendment get passed off a law here. I'm glad Sweden is protesting, but we really ought to be pushing our congressmen to move in an equally extreme and opposite direction here, now.

Re:Quad-Partison Decision

[mr_mischief]

Monitoring of foreign communications has never been a technical issue in the US within my lifetime, nor a legal issue within my father's lifetime. It's the domestic spying we really need to crack down on first. Then we worry about whether or not we can stop our government from spying on everyone else, or if that's even a good idea.

Re:Quad-Partison Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

This is domestic spying within the EU. I am surprised that European states tolerate that other EU-states spy on them when they send messages to other states that happen to pass some border.

I am a Swede (first and formost I am a European, but thats another issue), but all my communications to my parents and my friends in Sweden will now get intercepted by the Swedish government because I decided to cherish the European idea of free movement. The law scares people from talking to other Europeans or to other Swedes for that matter living out of the state and make people impose self censorship.

For the amusing part... a new ECHR decision from the 1st of July find the UK guilty of doing the very same thing, though the text is rather harsh for me to read as IANAL.

I really thought we had come further than this.

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

sweeden is full of loser-faggots

Only because we are so generous with immigration from Finland and Norway

It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[cycler]

There is one major fault in the article.

The FRA will only spy on traffic going across Sweden's borders.
NOT on domestic traffic.

/C

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[mr_mischief]

I think the concern in Sweden is about traffic that crosses the borders but which has one endpoint in the country. If you can spy on any traffic crossing the borders, that means that Swedes who communicate internationally or who communicate with other Swedes using international communications infrastructure are just as eligible.

Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[the4thdimension]

How can they tell the difference in a real-time fashion? Additionally, who is monitoring the "lookers" to ensure they are obeying the rules?

Furthermore, servers are often located all over the world. If you use a chat service of some kind, the information often leaves the area, then returns. Thus, this could be ruled as having been "crossing Swedens borders" but was actually Swedish traffic all along.

I think the overwhelming problems are:

1. Probably not enough oversight to ensure power is not being abused.
2. The ever-present slippery slope
3. Tough to discern the difference between international and local traffic in a uniform way
4. Costs a lot of money for arguable returns

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Per Wigren]

Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?

Nope, no protection at all.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And these types are to be distinguished how exactly?

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[geekoid]

Since a lot of calls bounce out of the borders and back in, do yuo really see that as effective?

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[init100]

Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?

In reality, very unlikely. But politicians usually lack everything but the most superficial understanding of computer and network technology, so they think that such protections will exist just because they wrote them into the law.

Several of them has said that FRA won't snoop on communication between swedes, regardless of whether the traffic crosses a border or even if they use international services like GMail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. But as anyone with a minimum of knowledge in the field knows, this is impossible, especially the claim that such communications won't even be processed. That's clearly either a lie, or at least gross ignorance of the subject.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

A majority of the domestic traffic, phone as well as internet passes the border already as it is - partly of course due to the fact that services like Gmail are used, but even without that, a majority still (may) cross the borders at any time because it is more "effective" that way - read: better routing. Specifically, a huge part of the traffic goes via Norway on a shared network, but it may pass other countries as well. And yes, this is phone and internet. And yes, this is calls/mails that may be to someone in the same house.

But it doesn't matter, really. A democracy just doesn't spy on their own citizens without any reasons.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Znork]

How can they tell the difference in a real-time fashion?

They have what was the #5 of the top known computer clusters in the world.

I think the overwhelming problems are:

The main flaw in the legislation is diverting any and all traffic without explicit court orders targeting specific cases. The rest derive from that.

And I wouldn't say 'arguable' returns, I'd say negative returns. The scheme is trivial to bog down beyond recovery; phrase generators are one thing, a much more useful form of clogging the works would be simply adding variable length encrypted segments of /dev/random to every mail you send. Can't decrypt it, can't prove it isnt decryptable, if you ever have something you actually care to hide you can stick it in the crypt section and you'd be previously whitelisted to avoid your mails bogging the system down or your mail will end up on the queue of unbreakable mails.

The days of a monitorable internet are at their end. Pressure from intellectual monopoly rights holders and the wars on everything have created many projects that are evolving into cell-structured encrypted anonymous darknets; the desire to monitor everyone and everything has created a situation where, soon enough, all communications will be structured akin to subversive cell networks.

Monitor everyone as if they were criminals, and everyone will develop and use tools that protect those being monitored as if they were criminals. Too bad there now is no extra measure to take when you want to monitor actual criminals.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if google moves its servers out of sweden, it means that 2 persons within sweden emailing each other through gmail will be wiretapped anyway...

There is no such thing as "domestic/across borders" on the internet

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

ya.. don't do that

I don't get why people think there is some pittance of privacy when they communicate over public networks?? The phone network is called PSTN. PUBLIC Switched Telephone Network. Are people expecting a different level of privacy because they are using packets instead of switched circuits? That's even more rediculous...

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some protection for two Swedes in Sweden who use, for example, Slashdot to communicate?

No

- The FRA

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[electrostaticcarrot]

The FRA will only spy on traffic going across Sweden's borders. NOT on domestic traffic.

Even when the communication has both endpoints within Swedish borders, traffic will often pass through the borders according to the whim of the 'net at the present time. Accessing something hosted by your next-door neighbor very well might take the packets on a ride through France, England, the US, etc. The bulk of Swedish Internet traffic ends up taking a turn or two through the border, and so the bulk of domestic traffic will be tapped.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the exact defense Bush&Co. offered for their wiretapping issue? We all know how that ended up.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily gmail, facebook and most of the internet are located in Sweden so I don't have to worry about being monitored.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[Tord]

Most of my domestic traffic crosses the borders. I use gmail for my e-mail so every single e-mail to/from me passes the border.

All sites and forums I regularly visit passes all information across the border (writing this on Slashdot for example).

Etc. etc.

Re:It's NOT within Sweden's borders

[japa]

Or course there is protection for the swedes, after all "the law was targeted for russia".

NOT

If the law does not prohibit targeting others, who in their sane mind thinks the given powers are not (ab)used to their fullest extent?

How much do you think the US paid for this?

[bill_kress]

I'm not trying to be a "USA SUCKS" guy (in this case). We obviously have legitimate concerns with Russia and if we aren't doing everything we can to monitor their traffic, we're really screwing up in the intelligence arena (again).

So, if we decided to monitor them, we'd go for the choke point, a place where all the Russian traffic flows, right? Of course Sweeden is a fairly open society (as opposed to ours) and I'm guessing they wouldn't attempt to help us without doing at least the bare minimum "above the covers".

So I suppose I'd be awfully surprised if we weren't behind all this.

Or if you think about it from the other direction--what use would Sweden itself have for intelligence about Russia beyond that of selling/giving it to governments that could do something with it?

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[QuantumFlux]

What would be an example of our (American, that is) "legitimate concerns" that wouldn't also be legitimate concerns of the free and open society of Sweden?

Seems like something that should genuinely bother us ought to be bother them as well.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

That absurd law specifically mentions the sale of such information to other nations.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[eddy]

Sweden has always been passing on intelligence to the US. We've lost people to get you the intelligence too. No doubt the laws which forbade FRA from snooping in cables have caused the stream of quality intelligence to the US to dry up, and I'm sure the US put pressure on our officials to get back on track.

That said, I believe this is mostly misdirection, but that's me.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[LWATCDR]

I would.
Simple if most the data flows through those cables then the US would just tap the cable off shore.
Or if possible tap them in Norway or some other NATO country.
Sweden prides it's self on being neutral. Odds are that Sweden want to do this for their own reasons. Sweden has been flying their own Elint aircraft since the 50s. Sweden knows that they have a lot more to fear from Russia than the NATO members but because they are outside of NATO they don't have access to all the NATO Intelligence data.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[faloi]

Sweden and Russia are pretty close geographically, last time I checked. I would think that Sweden would have a lot of use for intelligence as it relates to organized crime in Russia, military activities, industrial accidents that might not be reported through more conventional means for some time... Heck, there's a whole host of reasons that a country might want to keep tabs on a neighbor...especially a neighbor that has historically been a little reluctant to share lots of details with the outside world.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[kramer2718]

Sweden and Russia are pretty close geographically, last time I checked. I would think that Sweden would have a lot of use for intelligence as it relates to organized crime in Russia, military activities, industrial accidents that might not be reported through more conventional means for some time... Heck, there's a whole host of reasons that a country might want to keep tabs on a neighbor...especially a neighbor that has historically been a little reluctant to share lots of details with the outside world.

Don't forget all of the Russian ddos attacks and botnets.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[MaulerOfEmotards]

One of the main arguments for the FRA law has in fact been to gain a means of listening in to organised crime. No specific countries have been mentioned but most organised crimes in Sweden, ranging from petty stuff like pickpocketing and shoplifting to burglaries to drugs, weapons and trafficking) seem to come from former Soviet countries, predominantly Russia and the Baltic, or with "MC Gangs", that often are tied in with organised crime of those regions.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[swb]

And a neighbor who has has a history of military misadventures in Scandinavia.

The current Russian mafia/intelligence/government mash-up in power in Russia is a little scary.

I'd like to believe its just a matter of a little sort-of-useful nationalism to get the country back on track after the fairly rough post-communist era, but part of me also thinks its a government with the guiding spirit of nationalism, the abilities of the KGB/FSA and the morality and tolerance of organized crime.

I know lots of Russians are enjoying a sense of national pride and an improved personal financial picture, but I also think that the governments totalitarian instincts aren't exactly reassuring.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[init100]

Sweden knows that they have a lot more to fear from Russia

There is one reason why I don't really buy the "we need to snoop on Russia" argument: Why on Earth would we (Sweden) be continually reducing our defense forces (as we are) if Russia is so much a threat that we have to pass such a far-reaching wiretapping law to listen on them? It doesn't make sense. I mean, soon the only thing we could do to fend off an attack would be to throw compute nodes from the FRA supercomputer at the invading Russians, but I hardly think that this would stop them.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[AshtangiMan]

I don't think that you are correct in calling Sweden communist.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[KeithJM]

Sweden isn't communist, and neither is Russia. Sweden is more socialist than the US, and Russia is certainly struggling with capitalism, but I think you're about 20 years behind the times.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[yoprst]

And this gets modded insightful... Slashdot populace ain't getting better with time. Finland (unlike Sweden) would have a lot of use for that intelligence, because Finland, unlike, you know, Sweden, actually shares a border with Russia, and suffers from Russian crime (and vice versa, but let's pretend it doesn't happen). We don't hear about Finland snooping on Russia. We also don't hear about Sweden snooping on Russia and passing their data to Finland. What we hear is Sweden working as free intel service for US. In the end the result will be a pissed of Russia, and a warm smile from US administration. Truly an improvement of Swedish security.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[LWATCDR]

Well why has Sweden been flying Elint missions for fifty plus years? Intelligence is always an advantage. Also this is a pretty cheap way to get Comint. As I said the US would have many other options that didn't involve a public referendum.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Holammer]

Sweden has this history of collecting intel and supplying USA/NATO with information in exchange for protection in the event of a war. I believe this snooping law is simply required to hold their end of a bargain. One that dates from the 50's or so. But given the development of the internet the past decade, they need to focus on new ways to gather information. Which might be encouraged or even demanded by some outside party.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[abstract daddy]

Your link says that no crew members died.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your kidding right? You think Russia is still actively trying to funnel top secret data through Sweden after they publicly passed law to snoop on it? Wow that's pretty smart

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[bill_kress]

They are, I just don't think (from my ignorant American point of view) that Sweden has the resources to solve the problems it might find--on top of that, they tend to keep their noses out of other peoples business.

America has a history of being the opposite.

Again, from a somewhat isolated POV.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[gayak]

I want something you're smoking. Finland does snoop on Russia, all the time. Most likely more than any other country in the world (including US). Every country spies on their neighbours from military perspective, it's only natural. Internet communication isn't the only way to gather information, even if it's the way Sweden does it. And Finland will still share intelligence info between Sweden. This is just a smart move in a military sense to gather more information, it's valuable trade asset with other countries.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[erikdalen]

Quote: To this date the remains of only five of the eight-man crew have been found.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[abstract daddy]

Oh.

It's badly worded because the first paragraph makes it seem like they all made it.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

show me a country that is willing to share the details of domestic crime, military activities and industrial accidents with the outside world.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've lost people to get you the intelligence too.

So the Bothans are Swedish. It all makes sense.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just can't read.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[CRCulver]

Finland, unlike, you know, Sweden, actually shares a border with Russia, and suffers from Russian crime (and vice versa, but let's pretend it doesn't happen).

Except for drink and sex tourists vomiting liberally over Saint Petersburg, how exactly does Finland bother Russia?

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[init100]

Sweden hasn't been dismantling its defenses for the last 50+ years, that is a fairly recent occurrence.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[erikdalen]

Yeah, I agree somewhat, but that was the crew from the rescue mission which was also shot down.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Erikderzweite]

Do not forget, that Sweden's constitution states that it is a neutral country. It has been neutral during the cold war too, but only on paper. Intelligence data was shared with US and sometimes obtained for the US.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[abstract daddy]

This is the part where I roll my eyes.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Elldallan]

Terrorism for one. US has a resonable reason to expect terrorist plots agains your contry or your military bases placed on foreign soil as you have done alot to piss off muslims in general and terrorists in particular.
This is not something Sweden needs to worry about enough to warrant a law such as this and our UN expiditionary forces wouldn't benefit from this law either in a way that justifies these kind of laws.
Alleged terrorist funding operations originating in sweden is neither a big enough reason to warrant any law such as this.

IF the main reason for this law is Russia as the defense minister tries to claim then this wouldn't be done in public they would just quietly put a tap on the lines passing into sweden where the majority of the russian traffic passes through.

Sweden is a small country that doesn't concern most other countries in any significant way after the cold war officially ended. If Russia wanted to take sweden there's nothing Sweden could do about it except to use guerilla warfare against aggressors and hope somone more powerful intervenes, infact that was Sweden's grand military strategy during the cold war. Even that might be impossible today since Sweden is cherfully cutting fundings to large parts of their armed forces.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Elldallan]

Because until the Soviet Union fell Sweden had a very real threat on our doorstep and historically Swedens armed forces have been sized to deal with that threat the best it could and not completely bankrupt the country(after all there is a huge size disparity between sweden and what was the USSR).
After the Soviet Union fell Russia was unstable for several years and well, if you don't use gained skills you eventually forget those skills or the people with those skills retire.
During many years of the cold war Sweden had the world's third largest airforce and Sweden have always been making very high qualit military materials.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Elldallan]

Actually Sweden already gathers intelligence in many other ways it's simply that so far they've been prohibited from legally tapping into cable bound traffic, everything else has so far been fair game.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing your post hasn't been modded insightful.

You're obviously not from Sweden or you would know that Sweden suffers from a lot of organized crime from Russia, the Baltic states and other Eastern European states.
There is a serious problem with stolen car trafficking, for instance. My uncle's car was stolen and found later on a ferry headed to Estonia.
There is also a lot of internet crime originating in Russia and neighboring states: DDOS attacks, Phishing, and general Spam too.

What we hear is Sweden working as free intel service for US.

I haven't heard that, except from some stupid comments on this page. And I'm pretty sure they'll be sharing information with Finland if relevant.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[LWATCDR]

Exactly my point. Sweden has every reason to want to tap internet traffic going to and from Russia without any encouragement from the US.
And your right SAABs doesn't just cars with the ignition key in a strange place.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely more than any other country in the world (including US)

And, how exactly, would you know this?

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[yoprst]

I said we didn't hear about it, not that they didn't do it. Finland does what every sane country does - unlike Sweden in this case, so Finland doesn't get that kind of publicity.

Re:How much do you think the US paid for this?

[JAlexoi]

C'mon.... That vomit is highly TOXIC and without doubt is a military campaign using chemical warfare against Russia.

Help the Pirate Party

[kramer2718]

It is so refreshing to see a political party focused on electronic freedom and sane intellectual property laws.

Help the Pirate Party fight this and other crazy technology laws by donating

Re:Help the Pirate Party

[Dice Fivefold]

With it's opposition against this law, the pirate party has really proved itself to be a major opinion leader in Swedish politics. They have been leading the opposition of this law since the day the party formed. Together with the Swedish blogosphere they have made this the number one political issue this year. It is rare to see so many people so pissed off over a political issue in Sweden. The government never saw this coming and they're clearly having trouble handling the situation.

Before this summer the pirate party was mainly discarded as a bunch of clowns. I think now people will start listening to what they are saying. If they keep on being visible in the media, it is very likely they will get seats in European Parliament next year.

Re:Help the Pirate Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, no.

Re:Help the Pirate Party

[BraveSlice]

Why the hell they want my phone number? I almost understand the idea about the e-mail, but forced one?

From the Torrentfreak blog:

[GameboyRMH]

A few things:

Various viral campaigns have flourished along with grassroots activism and The Pirate Party has hauled full sails to catch the wind that will blow them straight into European Parliament during the elections of 2009.

That would be great, but IIRC they were almost ignored at the polls last time...you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years.

Next, we often speculate at what would happen if a populace were to massively protest a government action, and this is an interesting indication that it wouldn't do a thing. There seems to be more protest action on this in Sweden than there has been on the Iraq war and the FISA bill combined in the states, and the politicians aren't going to budge by the looks of it. Quite frightening.

Third, I love the "FRA: STFU GTFO" banner XD

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[cptnapalm]

"the politicians aren't going to budge by the looks of it"

This surprises you? The EU Constitution was routinely rejected in Europe, so they call it a treaty to get around that pesky voting thing. Then Ireland's people get to vote on it and reject it, so despite the requirement that it be unanimous, they have no intentions of stopping.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[ozamosi]

I see you're not European! ;)

That would be great, but IIRC they were almost ignored at the polls last time...

They received about 2/3 of a percent. That made them the third biggest party outside of parliament, which puts them in tenth place overall. Not amazing, but they had existed for about 6 moths at the time.

While the police's illegal TPB raid gave them a lot of power, all traditional media thought they wouldn't receive any votes at all. In polls, they weren't even an alternative. In party leader debates, they weren't invited - even if it was an event that was also open to parties outside of parliament.

The 2/3 of a percent proved to the mainstream that they are serious - nowadays, their party leader frequently gets to comment on integrity issues in mainstream media, and they're just much more visible. Things haven't stayed the same since the last time.

you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years.

Probably not in an election for the national parliament, no. However, almost nobody votes for the EU election (little more than a third of the population, usually), and those who do don't really care who their vote support.

Last time, the party Junilistan ("the June list") got 14.5% of the votes. The election was held in June, the party was established February the same year. So it's quite possible for the non-established parties to have amazing successes in the EU Parliament elections.

Oh, and the Pirate Party beat Junilistan in the last national election.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Per Wigren]

[The Pirate Party] were almost ignored at the polls last time

Not very true. It's true that they only got 0,63%, or 34918 of the votes, but that's a HUGE accomplishment for a party that had at the time only existed for a few months and had a budget of practically zero.

I personally know a significant amount of people who considered voting for them but in the end decided to vote for an established party because they still believed that the liberals would practice liberalism and that a vote on the Pirates would be a somewhat wasted vote. Now, after the FRA law has been voted through, by those who call themselves liberals, there are A LOT of people in Sweden who feel politically homeless. Considering that the surveillance craze was initiated by the social democrats before the last election, they aren't an option either.

Next year there is the EU election. The Pirate Party have a great chance to get actual seats in the European parliament. One reason is that there are usually much less voters in that election, and people don't vote there for things like "cheaper kindergartens" and "to save the local hospital". Combine this with the ongoing FRA uproar, that the Pirate party has a little money for campaign this time and that you only need 2% of the votes to get a seat and it's easy to see that a vote on the Pirates is anything but wasted.

If the Pirate Party get a seat in EU 2009 there will be a lot of attention, and this will help getting seats in the Swedish government in the 2010 election easier.

One more thing: The tone about the Pirate Party in media has been very different the last few months. We aren't seen as the just "the rebelling kids" or troublemakers (the negative meaning of it) anymore, but as a political phenomenon which is a bit of fresh air and is to be taken seriously.

If you want to help make this become reality, please consider donating some money! Every donation is welcome!

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[init100]

Probably not in an election for the national parliament, no.

It can be done though. See Ny Demokrati for an example.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Humm]

That would be great, but IIRC they were almost ignored at the polls last time...you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years.

Oh, I dunno. During the election 2005, a party (Junilistan) that hardly registered in the polls in the previous national election (I'm not even sure they existed at the time) got elected into the European Parliament. Remember: we don't have a winner-takes-all system.
Sweden generally has high voter participation in national elections (ca 80%), but participation is much lower in elections for the EP. This lowers the bar for getting elected significantly. It is certainly not impossible for the Pirate Party to get elected.

Having said that, the Pirates have some competition in the opposition against the FRA law. Yesterday, the environmental party (who have consistently opposed the law) and Sweden's biggest party, the social democrats (who will probably try to get some form of light version of the law passed later on), promised to overturn the law if they win the next national election.

Yes, politics is certainly very interesting in Sweden right now. I was cynically convinced that people would give up when the law passed. On the contrary. Even the old media is still on it, publishing something new almost every day.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot have individual referendums on a European issue, either a common European referendum or individual parliamentary approval (or both), but having national referendums on an issue like that is just a joke on democracy.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[ozamosi]

Having said that, the Pirates have some competition in the opposition against the FRA law. Yesterday, the environmental party (who have consistently opposed the law) and Sweden's biggest party, the social democrats (who will probably try to get some form of light version of the law passed later on), promised to overturn the law if they win the next national election.

Uhm.... What!?

They said that they wouldn't overthrow the law! The green party have said all along that they would, but yesterday they changed their mind. They said that they will start an investigation that is supposed to figure out whether the FRA law is a good idea.

The lefties, on the other hand, are going to try to prevent the law from becoming true this autumn.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[cptnapalm]

A joke on democracy? Are you kidding me? Individual parlimentary approval is *more* democratic than a national *referendum*?

The way the European governments are going about this is ANTI-democratic.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[JohnnyBGod]

I'm sorry, but a referendum for a 300+ page document that 90% of the population isn't going to be bothered to read, let alone understand, IS a joke on democracy.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[cptnapalm]

How?
Insisting that people do NOT get to vote is democratic? How?
A bunch of politicians, the majority of whom have not read the document either, voting on something AGAINST the the will of the people is democratic? How?

Seriously. By what ass-raped definition of "democracy" can you possibly define what they are doing as democracy?

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Wildclaw]

The lefties, on the other hand, are going to try to prevent the law from becoming true this autumn.

And that isn't strange because they have already beeen spied upon once in modern swedish history (see IB Affair).

Sad how politicians never seem to learn from history.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Anonymous Coward]

...you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years.

Tell that to the Nazis.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[lordholm]

The point is that it is either a Union of states and in that case the logical place to aprove it is in the local parliaments. If it is a Union of people, we can discuss about referendums, I dont mind having one, but it must in that case be a common one for all of Europe.

As said, individual referendums is a joke on democracy, do you think it is fair that 1.6M irish voters (out of 3M eligible) of which 860k voted no, have the opportunity to block the further developments of the Union which have a POPULATION OF 500M. This means that a mere 0.172 percent of the European population have voted against, and this is blocking the progress of the Union.

Having individual referendums in each state would not be fair either, what if the majority of the European voters supported the treaty but in Ireland there was an overweight of no-votes, how would you interprete that outcome?

No, the only referendum that would suit this kind of question would be a joint one, but perhaps with parliamentary approvals as a compliment.

The joke on democracy is also that the Irish voters in the name of democracy voted against the treaty which would ensure more areas in which the European Parliament have co-decision rights in it, i.e. they voted to keep the curent organisation where the unelected council have legislative rights in certain areas.

Congratulations, on behalf of the other 499.4M citizens of Europe I give my deepest thanks to the Irish no-voters, thank you for deciding this for the rest of us.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Elldallan]

Actually you can, atleast in Sweden it appears, during the last election for the European Parliament a previously unknown EU critical party called the Junelist came from nowhere and grabbed several seats so it does happen.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Irish don't make up the majority of EU-citizens, neither where the French or the Dutch before.

Dropping the constitution or later the treaty because some small fraction of the entire population voted against it is undemocratic.

The treaty which would have solved this problem of minorities ruling the majority failed because a minority was to lazy to read what was written in it, although they were voting for it.

Thank you Ireland, for your intellectual dishonesty.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Elldallan]

It is no less fair than if the national government had voted no on the issue and thus killing the proposition in the exact same way.If a proposition require a unanimous decision it doesn't matter wether the state that votes no does that because their parliament voted no or because they had a national vote on it.

What you're really against is that giving any nation the power to kill a proposition on their own.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Anonymous Coward]

"you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years"

In 1991 the Swedish party Ny Demokrati got 6.7% (enough to get into the national parliament) in a general election held less than six months after the party was formed.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy_(Sweden)

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[cptnapalm]

Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Seriously. It is a treaty, a pact between sovereign nations. Each individual country gets to approve or disapprove of a treaty. That is how the things work.

They tried the treaty approach because the governments could not coerce their people enough to vote for the constitution. A majority in those places asked said they did not want the constitution.

Are all Eurofascists as utterly stupid as you are?

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[cptnapalm]

In the majority of those places where the people got to vote on the constitution, they voted no. There is your "what if". The politicians saw that the people were not voting the way they wanted, so they called the constitution a treaty for the express purpose of AVOIDING DEMOCRACY.

Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Any sovereign nation gets to decide on whether or not to sign onto a treaty. As a sovereign nation, they also get to decide how best to decide the issue.

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[JohnnyBGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Re:From the Torrentfreak blog:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't call me a fascist, I'm on the left side of the spectrum.

It's just the recent decision of the Irish what shows how undemocratic the European Union can be.

It's not right that 5 million people have the right to decide the fate of 500 million. But nobody cares because everyone believes the bs of the media, congratulating the Irish upholding their dictatorship of minority.

The Red Danger is back

[Halo1]

sources close to the intelligence community say that Russia is the prime target

... because they figured that people are tired of hearing the terrorists story, and therefore came up with a different enemy to justify their hunger for control.

Re:The Red Danger is back

[geekoid]

Just an FYI:
Russia has been flexing it's military again; which seems strange.
They've flown at least one bomber into Alaskan air space recently that had to be escorted back.

Re:The Red Danger is back

[Klaus_1250]

Doesn't surprise me. Russia is not to happy about the US Missile Shield, but their opinion seems to be ignored. So they flex their military again to get some more weight behind it.

Re:The Red Danger is back

[Halo1]

There's nothing strange about Russia flexing its muscle. The whole reason that Putin became so popular is because he made sure that Russia was again taken seriously after Yeltsin's era. He may be oppressive to a certain extent and the riches may go mainly to his friends, but at least Russia is respected again.

And sure, Putin's Russia (and possible Medvedev's as well) is quite dangerous in various ways. But so are various terrorist organisations. However, they are nothing compared to the political leaders of the so called "free and democratic western world" who use those spectres to completely undermine the foundations of our society and let themselves be used by idiots dreaming about fantasy worlds they can only save by having ever increasing surveillance powers.

They probably honestly think they are doing this for the best of all, but somehow they lose sight of the fact that they are completely destroying whatever it is that they are supposed to be protecting in the process. But when things happen gradually, it's often very hard to notice stuff like that, especially when you're in the middle of it.

Re:The Red Danger is back

[Yomers]

They probably honestly think they are doing this for the best of all, but somehow they lose sight of the fact that they are completely destroying whatever it is that they are supposed to be protecting in the process. But when things happen gradually, it's often very hard to notice stuff like that, especially when you're in the middle of it.

They are supposed to be protecting their country interests. Currently freedom, democracy and stuff like that is just a weapons in information wars and tools to keep population under control.

Not so, because...

[Anonymous Coward]

in Soviet Russia, Swedes snoop YOU.

So who's responsible?

[eebra82]

The Swedish government has kept curiously quiet about the new law's objectives but sources close to the intelligence community say that Russia is the prime target.

This new law is so strange that it makes me think that the Swedish government is under the influence of a larger power.. I wouldn't be surprised if the United States or some other country had something to do with this, but who knows..

Meanwhile, the major opposing party Socialdemokraterna (socialistic democratic party) has vowed to undo the law if it wins the next election.

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, the major opposing party Socialdemokraterna (socialistic democratic party) has vowed to undo the law if it wins the next election.

Three guesses which party proposed the legislation while they were in government?

Re:So who's responsible?

[EchaniDrgn]

Of course the Swedish Government is under the influence of a larger power. It's called politics.

But it's not like any outside power can just get people elected and subsequently cause them to act completely against character. At least not in most first world countries.

Even if responding to influence from an outside government it's still the Swedish government that had to pass this.

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. The Socialist Democratic Party in Sweden has vowed to _change_ the law. They want to add some meaningless part about personal integrity - but keep the surveillance system and data parsing.

In practice, they won't change anything by adding the desired "integrity" paragraph to the law. It would mean that only people who are under suspicion will be monitored - but uhow_ would one do this without having access to - and investigating - each and every data packet?

Re:So who's responsible?

[manwal]

Meanwhile, the major opposing party Socialdemokraterna (socialistic democratic party) has vowed to undo the law if it wins the next election.

And not only that, they've also vowed to redo it!

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. They have vowed to "rephrase" it. As if that would mean anything in practice. Besides, come next election, the system is already not only installed, but powered on and up and running. That is way too late, period.

The parties that actually cares and don't just fish for votes will call a vote to cancel the law as soon as the vacations are over - that's actually "vowing to undo". It's a world of difference. Especially since the law came from those guys in the first place...

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are the ones who originally came up with the new law, most likely they will _remove_ whatever little integrity protection are in the law at that time ....

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, and Sweden and the US are to share "technology".

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/04/93/90057dc9.pdf (English)

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is said that Socialdemokraterna started the thing.

My opinion (I live in Sweden) is that socialdemokraterna are just aiming for cheap points; that they will never stop the law if they get the ruling position.
Historically they have spied domestically before, "IB-affären".

I have no trust for their leader either due to her behaviour ealier but that is out of scope.

Re:So who's responsible?

[Exanon]

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's do a short summary:

We have seven (7) parties in the Riksdag in Sweden, The leftists, the social democrats, the environmentalists (they form a loose group but squabble a lot). We also have the center, the people's party, the christian democrats and the moderate party. These last four parties formed an Alliance (commonly referred to as "the alliance") last election and won.

They are the ones that voted for the law. However, it was the Social democrats who proposed the new law a couple of years back, this is also the party whose minister of justice pushed for a bill in the EUropean parliament that all ISP's in the EU be forced to store traffic data on it's customers for two years. This is the infamous "data retention law".

So right now we have the three opposition parties complaining about the law, when one of them wanted it in the first place. It is unclear if the other two would in fact tear it up, should they come into power.

It's a bloody mess. And to make things worse, we have the "Sverigedemokraterna" (a party with a very cloudy past involving nazimeetings and burnings of Mosque's etc.) using the FRA-law as a hammer to get more voters in the next election.

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, openly stating Russia is the prime target is just a smokescreen. I mean, supposedly it should be a secret and they are telling it openly! Sounds like an excuse, to tame the public.

Re:So who's responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent needs to be modded up. The GP is just spurting retarded propaganda from the social democrats. They proposed the law at the start and are just trying to buy votes with promises so empty that they border on vacuum.

Re:So who's responsible?

[nafs]

Actually they, the Socialdemokraterna, were the ones who made first lawproposal like this when they were in power. I think they're very happy that someone else came and did the dirty work. I'm not sure they will undo the law.

I read this as

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden's Snoop Dogg Targets Russia.

INteresting

[geekoid]

Google moves their servers out of Sweden, but keeps them in China.

Re:INteresting

[cstdenis]

We all expect this kind of crap from China or the US, but not from most European countries.

Re:INteresting

[jbrendel]

Yeah, so? There is much more business to be had in a large country like China. We wouldn't want to screw up our revenue streams there, right? Sweden is such a small market, Google is unlikely to face sanctions from the Swedish government for it (blocking, filtering), and Swedish consumers can click on ads even if they were served from servers located in other countries. It's easy to "take a stand for freedom" if you literally have no money riding on it at all... Do no evil (as long as it's convenient).

Translated From Bushese:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sweden's Snoop Law Targets U.S.A." because the U.S.A is the real threat to European peace NOT Russia.

Cordially,
Kilgore Trout

Re:haha

[Hognoxious]

In Soviet Russia, loser faggots are full of YOU!!!

tell it to my butt

[unity100]

The FRA will only spy on traffic going across Sweden's borders.

yea, tell that to Mr Butt, my public relations correspondent. here, just bow your head closer to it ... yea like that ... hey whats that noise ? ooopss. sorry.

Some nuggets from the Swedish articles

[MaulerOfEmotards]

Since the references from TFA are mostly in Swedish, I thought I'd translate and share some of the most interesting points.

It should be noted that while the FRA law has been a source of intense debate both within the parliament and population at large, the governing parties have apparently made a point of as far as possible not mentioning it, neither before or after passing the bill. Also, before the bill was passed, the parliamentarians of the coalition parties were instructed to vote the party way (which is unconstitutional) which caused several embers to resign their positions in protest.

TFA notes that when the official silence has been broken, be it in response to the massive criticism or in private but revealed communication, the politicians in charge appear to range from inexcusably ignorant of the subject to criminally incompetent. As an example, it mentions Gunnar Andrén, the leader of the People's Party (folkpartiet) and a member of the liberal ruling coalition, who in a private email to fellow party member and parliamentarian Camilla Lindberg, who went against the internal instructions and voted against the law, expressed anger and recrimination.

This letter was publicised by Miss Lindberg's partner, a fact which made Mr. Andrén lash out in rage, claiming revealing a private letter was "Gestapo- and Stazi like" and "in violation of the Sanctity of Letters" act, a Swedish law that states that it is illegal by any party but the intended recipient to intercept or partake of the contents of a closed letter.

The irony, and what makes an incredibly arse out of him, is evident in the comments on the Swedish article (http://www.politikerbloggen.se/2008/07/03/9359/), a sample:

* "Smart guy, first voting for FRA and then getting pissed when someone does the same on him"
* "the yes-man Andrén is pissed about something he thinks only FRA and the government can do, the right to read others' private mail"
* "I agree with Gunnar Andrén that it is Gestapo methods to read others' letters or tapping phones. Now we know what GA wants in Sweden since he voted yes for FRA"

Re:Some nuggets from the Swedish articles

[init100]

* "Smart guy, first voting for FRA and then getting pissed when someone does the same on him"

This reminds me of another such episode in the FRA drama. Immediately after the bill passed the vote, some members of the pretty politically incorrect forum Flashback started a thread that purported to monitor the surveillance agency FRA, especially its employees. In it, they scoured publicly available sources, such as the FRA web site, Google, Facebook, MySpace, etc, for information on FRA employees, and posted what they found in the thread.

Shortly afterward, the FRA director cried out in the press against the publishing of "protected identities of secret FRA operatives" on the web. He complained that it was unfair and that his employees had a right to privacy. He apparently didn't see any hypocrisy of complaining about the lack of privacy for his own employees while taking away the privacy of everyone else.

Besides, what real "secret operatives with protected identities" have their own Facebook or MySpace page with their real name and FRA email address? Maybe he should inform his "secret agents" about not publishing their personal information on publicly accessible web sites. Not to mention the FRA web page, which contained a thorough organizational scheme with names, etc. He should probably clean up on his own doorstep before crying out in the press that someone had looked at their own web site.

The whole story was beyond funny.

Re:Some nuggets from the Swedish articles

[fuzzlost]

Gunnar AndrÃf©n

In other words, Slashdot hates unicode

Better link on the DC-3 incident.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't seem to find a good article on that on wikipedia (which is odd), but here'a decent recap from Report on downed DC-3 complete.

"The DC-3 took off from Bromma on the morning of 13 June 1952. The National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) had assigned the aircraft to monitor a large Soviet naval exercise.

A few hours after take off, a telegraph operator at Roslagen's wing in Hägernäs received a call from the aircraft. Contact suddenly disappeared and nothing more was heard. The DC-3 had been shot down by a Soviet fighter aircraft east of Gotska Sandön."

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Harsh, but in the last election they did vote in a bunch of right-wing clagnuts.

You know what Sweden: you vote for arseholes, you get arseholes.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia...(User is now offline)

So how long will it be

[skulgnome]

... until Russia starts routing packets through Sweden using encrypted IP tunneling? Just cooperate with some network operator(s) in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands and boom, all's cool. Of course communication to parties within Sweden would have to be excluded from the automatic VPN, but everyone already knows that Sweden is Big Brother country so buyer beware.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Finland, Estonia and Norway did this too. Sweden seems well on its way to becoming another of those countries where no one except parties that're cushy with the CIA will invest.

Re:So how long will it be

[init100]

So how long will it be until Russia starts routing packets through Sweden using encrypted IP tunneling?

That's not even necessary. Russia is currently building a gas pipeline called Nord Stream through the Baltic Sea. I would be very surprised if they didn't put a fat bunch of fiber-optic cables alongside, completely bypassing Swedish wiretaps.

More details from Sweden

[castrox]

The fact is that this issue is growing exponentially, gathering a massive opposition to this legislation. It finally, after much attempts to alert the media, feels like the issue has reached each and every Swede and many people outside of Sweden. It feels, in short, GOOD.

The sitting government is just now being shot at from every direction. ALL parties (left, center and right) "youth communities" (big thing here) are against the legislation - that's some heavy critisism!

The Prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, has actually expressed his thoughts on the matter in the media as thus: "We would all be better off if the debate dissipated." After which he was immediately flamed by all camps for saying the Swedish people are idiots.

The Defense minister, Sten Tolgfors, has made a fool out of himself by pleading that the state has no ill intentions and that they would never be able to wiretap each and every citizen (a pretty idiotic claim to begin with, completely missing the issue at hand).

Now the Defense minister admits that they want to get their hands on Russian traffic which might be seen as completely obvious. It's yet another input to Echelon of course.

As we speak, the wiretap legislation debate is top dog in most of the big news papers in Sweden - we might have a shot at tearing it up.

This september a demonstration is scheduled in Stockholm - then we will burn out politicians at the stake. Which us luck!

Re:More details from Sweden

[dahitokiri]

This is probably the best news I've heard all day. If Big Brother law gets struck down, Sweden definitely goes back on the list of countries that I can move to, especially the current FISA situation in the US.

Re:More details from Sweden

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Good luck!

Re:haha

[Eudial]

I live in Sweden, and since the days of the cold war, I've been making jokes about imminent Russian invasion. Guess they've suddenly turned less hopelessly out of date.

And let me be the first to say: I for one welcome our new Russian overlords. I've been preparing for the transition by consuming large quantities of Vodka on a regular basis.

This will work because...

[Christian]

...luckily they don't have cryptography in Russia!

Secession?

[marstein]

This surprises you? The EU Constitution was routinely rejected in Europe, so they call it a treaty to get around that pesky voting thing. Then Ireland's people get to vote on it and reject it, ...

If each state of the US could vote on leaving the union - how many would get that through? In Europe as elsewhere this is not looked at subjectively but from the gut.

Re:Secession?

[cptnapalm]

If memory serves, the member nations, when forming the EU were told that they could in fact leave. Seeing how utterly treacherous these scum have been regarding their patent dishonesty with the constitu... uh, treaty, I have no faith that they did anything other than lie through their teeth to get states into the union in the first place.

Torrentfreak + Pirate Party = PirateBay?

[ClarisseMcClellan]

Come on guys - it is not the Cold War any more. It's not G7+1 any more. At the G8 they all sit around the same table. This year the new idea was to control pirate material on the interwebs.

My B.S. detectors have gone up and that 'Russian IP traffic story' stinks of a cover story. That 'DNS bug' story whiffs a bit too.

Call me suspicious, but why is piratebay down? Is it because it is in Sweden and their government are now playing ball?

If that is the situation - no more torrents - then that is tedious. I will have to manually upgrade 100's of early nineties limited edition 12" records to MP3, as will everyone else with sizeable vinylariums. This is a bad thing for the artists that put their work out on small vinyl-only record labels that are no longer in existence.

Those records cost vastly more than what today's record companies can charge for X-Factor boy bands and other such junk. Furthermore, without torrents shared by fans those traxxx are gone for good - total unobtanium. For example, Rising High Records. The record label owner is dead, each 12" single cost UKP 3.99 - 4.99 and the dedicated fan bought them all the first time round. The true fan would gladly pay for the MP3's, but, are these records available for sale in MP3 form? Nope.

RIAA 1, Obscure-Under-ground-Culture-of-Yesteryear 0.

Sometimes You Do...

[maz2331]

"you don't go from a fringe party getting a negligible number of votes to winning an election in just a few years."

It is exactly how the Republican Party started up in the USA in the 1850's. They went from zero to President in under 10 years.

So, yes, it can happen.

The real key is to have the right answers to the questions that resonate with enough people at the time to win credibility.

myth of democracy

[don_oles]

Now you clearly see that
democracy == deceit(stupidity + control).
The new law is stupid, so the politicians that voted for it are stupid, that means people that voted for politicians are stupid. Only a few one made up the law to cover their own reason for this, they want control.
 

Neighbour concerns

[broeman]

As a neighbour to Sweden, the Danish people and government has voiced their concern with Sweden lately (not the old "forbudssverige" (directly translated "The Forbitten Land" because mainly of their alcohol policies).

Many customers have asked their Internet provider to remove traffic through Sweden if possible, but many IPs use Swedish backbones. The Danish Police Intelligence (if any) is very concerned, since most of their traffic goes through Sweden, and the Minister of Justice wants to contact the Swedish government for information on how it will affect Danish citizens. The Minister of State ("primeminister", he's seldom seen in Denmark lately) and Minister of IT doesn't want to though, as they see it as a "Swedish Case".

Re:Neighbour concerns

[IdeaMan]

Can we blackhole all of Sweden?

No new Swedish DNS registries.
No DNS resolutions that resolve to any site in Sweden.
No email to Swedish addresses.

Switzerland

[Anonymous Coward]

That country already exists. It's called Switzerland.

If the people can gather 50.000 signatures against a law within 100 days after it is proposal, the law is voted on in a public referendum.

Re:Switzerland

[suck_burners_rice]

The keyword here is IF , which means the people constantly need to be on top of things and to actively fight things they don't like. But that doesn't usually happen and the government passes thousands of laws that the people know nothing about. Only very controversial stuff that the media decides to cover is fought for or against. By requiring ALL new laws to pass the filter of a public vote, which happens once per year, it means that unless the public ACTIVELY goes out and votes in favor of a law, the government can write new laws all day long but none of them will get passed. Only the ones that 50% or more of the population want passed into law. It's an additional safety measure against a runaway government.

Oh my god

[Anonymous Coward]

How old are you? 50-years old, you are living in cold-war era, ah? %-)
I'm living in Russia, I'm a system administrator one of the biggest ISP in St.Petersburg, and I'm feeling pretty cool. Really. Scary tales about Russians "mafia/vodka/nationalism/goverment" almost always are tales for kiddies, no more. If there will not be "a scary strange Russia" in your magazines and news, what will be? =))
So, closer to subject - I don't understand, what KIND of analyse would be. Statistic analyse or deeper, packets analyse? What are you looking for, Sweden? Torrents flow? Military secrets? =)

With best regards,
Dennis Yusupoff,
system administrator of AS41025/39618 ISP

Re:Oh my god

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you looking for, Sweden? Torrents flow?

Yes, Piratebay torrents and scientology documents. These copyright infractions will be reported to the relevant US dollar millionaires. And yes, before you ask... we do get a cut.

Sincerely,
FRA.

Re:Oh my god

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the language barrier. An utter confusion remains of Russian philosophy of power, intentions and the general world view. The lack of information causes fear, fear causes hate, hate causes unnecessary and irrational confrontations. /youda voice

Re:Oh my god

[Dyr]

By the way - we are going to reroute our foreight traffic throught Germany now. Bye-bye, Sweden. =)

At least they are honest about it...

[MrOion]

There is a lot of fuss about the new Swedish law that gives FRA access to snoop on all Internet traffic passing their borders. To be honest, I don't really see the problem here. We have always suspected governments to listen in on Internet traffic, and Sweden is at least open about it.

We all know that as soon as our data goes outside of the network we physically control, we have no guarantee that nobody are tapping the data. This is old news, and we have been aware of it for many years now.

In "the old days" when we wanted to pass messages through "enemy territory", we used something called "encryption". Wouldn't it be an idea to learn from that?

Obligatory

[Arancaytar]

In Sweden, YOU spy on Soviet Russia!

Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing. It will speed up adoption of properly encrypted communications.

Why would the Russians care?

[shutdown -p now]

Okay, so they're gonna spy on me. Why would I care? They're not doing anything my own government isn't doing already...

Re:haha

[tuomoks]

It is funny - I'm loosing my points by answering but this has to be explained to the rest of the world. We in Finland, Sweden and Norway have had this friendly companionship over hundreds of years (as long as it doesn't touch sport, talking about hockey between Finland and Sweden in a bar in California got everybody alarmed!) Or when Sweden occupied Finland a couple of times, actually good times in history but they speak a weird language so we got rid of them BUT not the language, the second official language in Finland - heh! Besides, Sweden is good keeping Russia in shack - they scared some submarines with red stars very well a couple of years ago - it was funny! Of course, Norwegians are the best dancers and may have the best home made beer but they don't have Absolut or Finlandia!