In Finland, Nokia May Get Its Own Snooping Law

notany writes "Nokia may be too big a company for Finland (a country of 5 million people). It seems that Nokia's lobbyists can push an unconstitutional law through the legislature at will. After Nokia was caught red-handed, twice, snooping on its employees (first 2000-2001, second 2005), the company started a relentless lobbying and pressure campaign against politicians to push what the press has been calling 'Lex Nokia' or the 'snooping law.' This proposed law would allow employers to investigate the log data of employees' e-mails, legalizing the kind of snooping that Nokia had engaged in. Parliament's Constitutional Law Committee asked the opinions of eight legal experts, and all opined that the proposed law is unconstitutional. The committee ignored all the advice and declared the proposal constitutional." An anonymous reader adds a link to an AFP story reporting that Nokia has threatened to pull out of Finland unless the law passes.

Comments

In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

In soviet union....hey wait a minute!

Re:In soviet union

[TeknoHog]

The country code for Finland used to be SF, standing for Suomi-Finland, as Suomi is how we Finns call Finland. The ongoing joke was that SF really stood for Soviet Finland due to our somewhat submissive relationship with the USSR.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

The ongoing joke was that SF really stood for Soviet Finland due to our somewhat submissive relationship with the USSR.

Anyone calling the Finns "submissive" towards the USSR has never bothered to read a history book. If the Finns were submissive, Finland wouldn't even exist as a country today. The Finns stood up to Stalin and resisted his aggressive designs -- they managed to stalemate the Soviets for more than three months even though they were outnumbered 4 to 1 (in men, the disparity in tanks/aircraft/artillery was even worse) and kept their sovereignty.

Here's a tidbit for anyone that tells you the Finns were submissive: Of the European nations involved in WW2 only three managed to survive the war without having their capital occupied by the enemy: the UK, the Soviet Union and Finland.

Re:In soviet union

[tietokone-olmi]

Do read up on finlandization, then. It's what we have now towards the US, the EU and NATO instead of what we used to have after the war and until 1991, when it was with regard to the USSR. Most everyone fucking hates that our so-called elected leaders are entirely spineless towards power of any kind.

We do have a bit of national pride with regard to the winter war. It's mostly misplaced: the main reason why that war went so well was that Stalin set the invasion up as a PR operation first and foremost. His troops had no supplies, no supply lines, not even proper winter wear. And yet they managed to conquer significant areas of land, which for some reason is billed as a "defensive victory".

The finnish army subsequently went on, encouraged by the "victory", to get their arses kicked alongside the foremost military might of the time, Nazi Germany. The Soviets were the ones doing the kicking, unsurprisingly.

Re:In soviet union

[eiapoce]

Anyone calling the Finns "submissive" towards the USSR has never bothered to read a history book. If the Finns were submissive, Finland wouldn't even exist as a country today. The Finns stood up to Stalin and resisted his aggressive designs

And that is when they were allied with Hitler's Germany.

Nevertheless this law is absurd as much as absurd are part of finnish costumes. A country where there is no privacy and you are eligible to get anyone's identity and tax forms with a SMS isn't a country protecting his citizens right to private life (unless they are gipsies of course).

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

And that is when they were allied with Hitler's Germany.

They weren't allied with anybody (though the Swedes did provide some logistical support and volunteers) during the Winter War. You are thinking of the Continuation War.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

It's mostly misplaced: the main reason why that war went so well was that Stalin set the invasion up as a PR operation first and foremost. His troops had no supplies, no supply lines, not even proper winter wear. And yet they managed to conquer significant areas of land, which for some reason is billed as a "defensive victory"

Well, like most Russian "victories" they were successful by drowning their opponent in Russian blood. The Russians took nearly half a million casualties to conquer 9% of a country that wasn't even a 50th of the size of the Soviet Union. One Russian general was quoted as saying "We've won just enough ground to bury our dead"

The finnish army subsequently went on, encouraged by the "victory", to get their arses kicked alongside the foremost military might of the time, Nazi Germany.

I don't know how you can say you got your asses kicked when you were the only non-western country to come out of the war with your sovereignty intact. You did better than the Baltic States, Poles or even the Germans. Have some national pride and don't be so dismissive of your accomplishments. You held onto your sovereignty against the most ruthless power of the day with little outside support despite overwhelming odds.

I'd love to get to come to Finland some day and see some of the memorials and museums related to the Winter and Continuation Wars. Where would you suggest I go?

Re:In soviet union

[tietokone-olmi]

Call it what you will; I like to call it "less than being conquered". Don't get me wrong -- it's vastly preferable to the other thing, but it's not a victory. Calling it such a thing is a leftover of the old cultural homogeneity that took a beating in the post-Soviet-breakup crash and the recession that followed. Reminding people of the lies they were fed during that time will get you weird looks, after which whatever you say goes in one ear and out the other.

Now with regard to the Quest for All Land Between The Border and The Urals, also known as Operation Barbarossa. I'll say that it was a pretty smart tactical move at the time: it wasn't all that certain that Nazi Germany wasn't going to win (though it's painfully obvious in retrospect). Taken this way, it was a method for hedging our bets and hopefully avoiding both Stalin's and Hitler's purges, whichever would end up victors.

Still, attacking Russia, even during the summer, was nothing short of madness brought on by jingoism and the belief that as allies of Nazi Germany we'd be invincible. ("What Soviet arms industries? They're just a bunch of ignorant farmers, aren't they. We'll have their cake just like the last time.") Between the wars, speaking publicly of peace and goodwill would get one locked up for treason. Not a nice time from a civil rights perspective.

As for museums, gee, I have really no idea. There's a museum of military aviation somewhere, and one about historical armor in Parola. The national museum in Helsinki has a permanent display of pre-independence arms and armor (as in personal armor. plate.). For this, you're really asking the wrong guy. Perhaps wikitravel would serve you better?

Re:In soviet union

[tietokone-olmi]

However, now that I gave it a bit more consideration, I guess simply not folding before conquest noises from the USSR was pretty impressive given the times. Quite a few countries would have, and later on did.

I suppose in one way we ended up pioneering the concept of turning an "open and shut war, it'll be done before breakfast next monday" into a quagmire and a political embarrassment. That's the characteristic bloody-mindedness for you I guess.

Re:In soviet union

[icsx]

No wonder SF got changed into FIN -> we are now finnished.

Re:In soviet union

[Hellahulla]

Glad to hear some Finns can be honest and approach that time in history objectively, makes a huge difference to what you normally hear from Finns (mostly young surprisingly) about that period of history. I don't even mention that little post independence squabble called civil war any more in polite pubtime debate.
Sure, Finland is a great nation, it's moved on a lot from it's past, but it's past should not be glossed over or forgotten or rewritten (like the sort of thing that would happen during Breshnev's time).
Have a good night.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the European nations involved in WW2 only three managed to survive the war without having their capital occupied by the enemy: the UK, the Soviet Union and Finland.

Did you know? The UK is not a nation, European or otherwise. Such a basic error makes me question your knowledge of this entire subject.

Take that for flamebait if you must. I'm sure that'd be easier than saying "hey, I screwed up, maybe doing that and not owning up to it harms my credibility!" Of course, which option you take depends on what sort of man you are.

Re:In soviet union

[denzacar]

The Finns stood up to Stalin and resisted his aggressive designs -- they managed to stalemate the Soviets for more than three months even though they were outnumbered 4 to 1 (in men, the disparity in tanks/aircraft/artillery was even worse) and kept their sovereignty.

A simple, yet effective presentation.

Re:In soviet union

[Wyatt Earp]

Every country in Europe was "involved" in WW2, some were just not belligerents.

"In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents. However, the application of the laws of war to neutral countries and the responsibilities of belligerents are not affected by any distinction between neutral countries, neutral powers or non-belligerents. A non-belligerent may nevertheless risk being considered a belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way proscribed by neutral countries."

Iceland is considered an "European" country and it was not occupied by the enemy.

Re:In soviet union

[aliquis]

... due to our somewhat submissive relationship with the USSR.

And there's nothing wrong with that! We all enjoy different things!

Re:In soviet union

[aliquis]

So join us (Sweden), Norway and Denmark and form simply Scandinavia or something, pleaase =P.

I wonder if the danish people would really like that though, especially since their policy against foreign people is kinda different, though they have wanted to have us as part of them so often earlier so why not? :D Finally a way to get rid of SkÃ¥ne to! (Just kidding everyone in MalmÃ, we like you to.)

I guess Norway may want to be on their own as long as they got the oil to.

Re:In soviet union

[Ihmhi]

Man, that sounds like a Chuck Norris joke in the making.

Of the European nations involved in WW2 only three managed to survive the war without having their capital occupied by the enemy: the UK, the Soviet Union, and Chuck Norris.

Re:In soviet union

[aliquis]

It's the Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Re:In soviet union

[aliquis]

Sweden wasn't either though we never did any actual war.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

Call it what you will; I like to call it "less than being conquered". Don't get me wrong -- it's vastly preferable to the other thing, but it's not a victory

I think it's the best a nation the size of Finland could expect against a nation the side of the Soviet Union. What would have been the better alternative?

Still, attacking Russia, even during the summer, was nothing short of madness brought on by jingoism and the belief that as allies of Nazi Germany we'd be invincible

I don't know what I'd call it exactly but I can't really say as I blame the Finns for wanting to retake the lands that were stolen by the Soviet Union. You'll note that the United States never declared war on Finland and even sent congratulations when the Finns initially liberated Karelia. It's a shame that geography and geopolitics didn't align a little bit differently, but given the hand Finland was dealt I still think you did pretty well.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

Iceland is considered an "European" country and it was not occupied by the enemy.

Actually, at the time Iceland was part of Denmark and you'll note that Denmark was occupied. Furthermore, Iceland itself was occupied by the British and later by the Americans.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

I guess that would be why I said "of the nations involved in the war". And you guys were bigger cowards than the Swiss. You didn't fight -- you just provided Nazi Germany with all the iron ore she needed to run her war machine and access to your rail network to move troops. Way to take a stand for freedom and liberty.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

I guess simply not folding before conquest noises from the USSR was pretty impressive given the times. Quite a few countries would have, and later on did.

Like I said, you managed to retain your sovereignty with little outside support. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment and shouldn't be dismissed.

I suppose in one way we ended up pioneering the concept of turning an "open and shut war, it'll be done before breakfast next monday" into a quagmire and a political embarrassment. That's the characteristic bloody-mindedness for you I guess.

The sad thing is that the main reason the Soviets eventually "won" the Winter War was because the Finns ran out of supplies. Towards the end the Finns were killing Soviet troops with captured Soviet equipment. The Soviets expected an easy victory (there were even concerns that troops would accidentally enter Sweden) and got bloodied for it. They never did manage to conquer Finland either. Even at the end when the Red Army was sweeping aside the Wehrmacht the Finns still managed to stand up to them and secure a negotiated peace.

It's always bothered me that Finland's involvement in WW2 doesn't receive much attention in the Western press. It's a pretty compelling story once you start researching it.

Re:In soviet union

[Antique Geekmeister]

Size isn't the only factor. Cuba does OK against the USA, for example.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

Let me know when Cuba is actually invaded by the US and how they do. And don't say Bay of Pigs either -- the Soviets sent a million men into Finland.

Re:In soviet union

[chromatix]

The most obvious place to start is Suomenlinna, the Fortress of Finland, which is built on an island complex just outside Helsinki. There's a regular ferry between there and the mainland, and it's big enough to be worth spending at least an entire day there.

The museums there cover everything from pre-1800 (when Finland was part of Sweden rather than Russia) to at least WW2, and many of the 19th-century Russian howitzers are still in position, though unusable.

Re:In soviet union

[aliquis]

Yeah I know, I just wanted to know if there was any difference in us and Iceland. Though I must have to admit I don't know much about what we did at all, except the stuff you mention.

Anyway, you can't blame us, it worked, didn't it? ;D
We retained our freedom and it was good for our economy I assume, even more so after the war coming out intact vs the rest of Europe.

Too bad we have never actually deserved our "richness" so now this long time after WW II we have lost our free edge.

When will there be WW III?!! We need it.

If only I got some chance to export some swedish wood ...

Re:In soviet union

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm afraid, sir, that I do get to say "Bay of Pigs". Those were US trooops on Cuban soil. What Cuba had, and Finland lacked, was a nuclear superpower as a direct ally. Numerous NATO allies have been used US military support for decades to prevent the USSR from conquering them, so there are some reasonable points to compare. I also get to say "Cuban Missile Crisis". Getting nuclear weapons stationed by allies also helps.

Goodness, the Finns small army even did serious, serious damage to the numerically larger Soviet army and encouraged other nations to believe that the Soviets were ill-trained and incompetent at war as they had just shown themselves to be. It helped encourage other European countries to believe that they could stand together and resist the much feared Soviet expansion after World War II.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

What Cuba had, and Finland lacked, was a nuclear superpower as a direct ally

Sorry, you fail. The Soviet Union didn't get involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. In any case I'd love to hear how the Bay of Pigs (1,400 exiles) is a valid comparison with the Winter War (1,000,000 troops, 6,000 tanks, 3,800 aircraft).

I also get to say "Cuban Missile Crisis". Getting nuclear weapons stationed by allies also helps.

The missile crisis came sometime after the Bay of Pigs. It had less to do with protecting Cuba (although I'm sure that's how Castro saw it) and more to do counter-balancing our missiles in Turkey. Once we agreed (secretly) to give those up you'll note that the Soviets pulled their missiles out of Cuba.

Re:In soviet union

[Antique Geekmeister]

The Soviet Union was involved only implicitly in the Bay of Pigs, due to Castro's and Che Guevara's publicly Communist policies. And the Bay of Pigs isn't, of course, directly comparable to the Soviet invasion of Finland as a full military campaign. But the point stands, they were invaded, by a vastly larger neighbor, and repelled it. The neighbor wasn't trying very hard: think about why that was to understand how small countries avoid successful invasions in general.

For another example of a small country successfully repelling invasion by a powerful neighbor, look at Kuwait and Iraq. Getting foreign allies is vital, and effective.

And for the missile crisis, Castro's reasons for wanting the missiles were _of course_ to deter US invasion of Cuba. The US had already tried it once, and gotten their wrists slapped. That's why Turkey accepted NATO or US missiles threatening the Soviets.

Let's also be completely clear: the Cubans hosted numerous Soviet military vessels, for supplies and shore leave and repair, throughout the rest of the Cold War. This gave Soviet vessels with nuclear capacity excellent excuses to be within range of the US, even if nuclear armed vessels avoided docking in Havana to ease US nuclear concerns.

Re:In soviet union

[Hal_Porter]

It's always bothered me that Finland's involvement in WW2 doesn't receive much attention in the Western press. It's a pretty compelling story once you start researching it.

Yup, damn right. It reminds me of the free(well comparatively) Greeks vs the Persians.

What's cool about the Finns is that even though their main ally was Nazi Germany they managed to block German attempts to Nazify Finland whilst at the same time fighting off the Red Army.

Of course you can sneer at Finlandisation post war, but even that seems to me to be the least bad option for Finland.

Re:In soviet union

[pookie13]

Yeah, you had other matters to concern during war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg

Re:In soviet union

[tpheiska]

I'd love to get to come to Finland some day and see some of the memorials and museums related to the Winter and Continuation Wars. Where would you suggest I go?

This is a bit complicated. There's several on-site museums but you have to be willing to travel a bit. The most interesting site is Suomussalmi, where the a smallish Finnish force decimated two divisions and one tank brigade.. There's several monuments and museums on-site..
If you want to learn more about the important locations and events, I suggest reading "Frozen Hell" by William Trotter.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

you should really listen Italians about how they won the second world war (no, really, WTF?)

Re:In soviet union

[TheCybernator]

Of the European nations involved in WW2 only three managed to survive the war without having their capital occupied by the enemy: the UK, the Soviet Union and Finland.

NO. THEY COULD NOT CAPTURE MY CAPITALS TOO!!

Re:In soviet union

[N1AK]

The fact you had to post this AC makes it pretty obvious you know how petty the post was.

The author and everyone reading it will all of known that he meant London, and the way in which he expressed it was perfectly acceptable, even if it wasn't in full pedant style.

Re:In soviet union

[notany]

I'm a Finn. I know we fought well in WW2. It's what happened after the war that was submissive. It has even own word: Finlandisation

It all started after the war. Politicians knew that we would not be able to stand war against Soviets if we were the only enemy. They desided to play really really nice. Almost everything was OK as long as it did not involve Soviet troops in Finnish soil. It became liturgy to talk how good relations were between our countries. I think this was good idea at first. But then new generation of politicians grew, who thought that this good relationships bullshit was real. Soviets were able to influence our politics a lot. Finland censored talking, books and movies that were negative to Soviets. Some people even started to believe Soviet propaganda that we started the war.

The good part of all this was that we could keep our own economic system and democracy going (even if Soviets were able to mess with it from time to time). The cost of having western lifestyle next to Soviet Union was our pride. Cold war era was bad time for Finns.

Re:In soviet union

[ultranova]

Man, that sounds like a Chuck Norris joke in the making.

Chuck Norris doesn't call the cavalry because if Chuck Norris called the cavalry he would call Mannerheim, and Einstein proved that that much force in one place would create a black hole.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

But the point stands, they were invaded, by a vastly larger neighbor, and repelled it

No, they were invaded by a handful of exiles who received a small amount of support from that vastly larger neighbor and not even much of that. The comparison is absurd.

And for the missile crisis, Castro's reasons for wanting the missiles were _of course_ to deter US invasion of Cuba

I'm sure that's why Castro wanted them but the reason why he wanted them really wasn't that important. The Soviets used him as a pawn to advance their own agenda and abandoned him as soon as they deemed it to be in their best interests.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

Of course you can sneer at Finlandisation post war, but even that seems to me to be the least bad option for Finland.

I've always wondered if they would have picked a side (willingly or unwillingly) if the West had come to blows with the Soviet Union. I don't think they had any lost love for the Soviets it would have been another situation of two giant powers slugging it out. Finland is one of the few (the only?) small countries that ever happened to be between two such powers and managed to come out of it with their country (mostly) and sovereignty intact.

It's still an amazing achievement really.

Re:In soviet union

[nazsco]

Mod entire thread offtopic.

kthxbye.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

They fought alongside the bad guys. Finland has nothing to be proud of.

Re:In soviet union

[tpheiska]

As opposed to United States who fought alongside Sovient tyrants and mass murderers. I'm not trying to justify any Nazi actions but the allies carry as dark a history as well. Why Germans are accused is merely because history is written by victors.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK is not a nation, European or otherwise.

So what is it, then? Chopped liver?

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you had to post this AC makes it pretty obvious you know how petty the post was.

Whether something truly is petty or whether people are merely inclined to think so because they won't like its content are two different matters. Both would look the same. Posting as AC is a tool and considering the rather egotistical culture here I felt it was the right one for the job of requesting a correction. But please, if you want to celebrate your great courage for not posting AC, you'll get no interference from me.

The author and everyone reading it will all of known that he meant London, and the way in which he expressed it was perfectly acceptable, even if it wasn't in full pedant style.

I don't share your claims of mind-reading abilities, especially considering that London isn't a nation either, it's a city, so no I wouldn't have assumed "oh he must mean London." So you see, his original meaning isn't so obvious and I don't really want to speak for him by assuming (yes, that's what assuming does). Otherwise I was interested in what he had to say, I just need to know exactly what that is before I can evaluate it. Is that so unreasonable? Do you understand that this is a real factual consideration and not merely some grammatical complaint? Perhaps telling me more about how petty I know I am will magically clear up every issue I raise, right?

Re:In soviet union

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, the Soviets had any number of reasons to want nuclear strike capability against the USA. A few of those reasons even involved Cuba itself. (Preserving an eagerly Communist regime in the Western hemisphere was very, very good press. Getting tourists to visit and appreciate that Communist regime could be an island vacation spot with great education and beautiful, tanned, bikini clad women was good, too.

It also doesn't invalid Castro and Cuba's effective defense against their extremely irritated neighbor to the north. The point stands. A small country can do things about a larger country invading, or planning to invade. What is available for one country may not be available to another, but size remains only one important factor, not the only important factor.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians took nearly half a million casualties

Wow, where do you get your figures? Citation please, because the generally accepted numbers of Soviet casualties range from 40 to about 120 thousand. Sure, that's still a lot, but nowhere near half a million.

Re:In soviet union

[alecwood]

Haha,

You got to love the moderation on here

Troll = someone who posted other than official US version of an event.

Lol, welcome to the club antique geekmeister

Re:In soviet union

[tpheiska]

I didn't state the number but I can pitch in: "G. F. KrivoÅejev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, 1997, ISBN 1-85367-280-7, Greenhill Books" states 126 875 dead or missing (estimate), 264 908 wounded and 3 100 prisoners. That's approximately 400 000 casualties. Additionally Kruschev said that 1.5 million men were sent to Finland and one million of them were killed. Although this is certainly an exaggeration it has a hint of truth since in reality, no one knows the numbers. The army was not organized, they were merely gathering men and sending them over to be slaughtered. Some people weren't even arranged to companies. For additional information I suggest William Trotter: Frozen Hell.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

A small country can do things about a larger country invading, or planning to invade.

Yes, they can fall into the orbit of that larger countries enemy and become a de-facto puppet state totally reliant upon that larger country for support. The Cuban example is not one that I would be particularly eager to follow. The Finns actually managed to pull it off without becoming anyones puppet.

Re:In soviet union

[OrangeTide]

The USA failed due to the incompetence of JFK and his utter lack of resolve in this particular situation. We have a naval base on their island, yet we tried to overthrow their government with a handful of civilians? Give me a break.

I think of the US took Cuba seriously then they would have a McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner by now. But the US often fails these sorts of small time operations, which are little more than PR stunts. And the US suffered (and still does) from the serious problem of letting the CIA manage operations.

And if the USSR took Finland seriously, then the Russians would have easily taken over Finland.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

And if the USSR took Finland seriously, then the Russians would have easily taken over Finland.

They sent a million men into Finland. How much serious do you think they could have been?

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

I guess I should have said 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Maybe that would have mollified the AC.

Re:In soviet union

[Shakrai]

Finlandization was a pretty dark time for your people but it beat the hell out of what happened to Poland. I still think you have a lot to be proud of. It's a shame that the geopolitics/geography didn't work out differently -- you might not have needed to cozy up to the USSR -- but given the hand that Finland was dealt I think you did better than most other nations would have.

Re:In soviet union

[AndersOSU]

The allies hands might not be squeaky clean, but that's mostly a result of how much war sucks. If you really want to blame the west for something I'd point to the treaty of Versailles, which in my opinion was the direct cause of WWII. As far as fighting "along side" the soviets, it was essentially a matter of necessity. The main reason Stalin died of old age while Hitler's army was crushed was that Stalin played better politics. Either way, I don't consider a short lived alliance to be a tacit acceptance of Stalin's methods - after liberating most of western Europe (which was really the only goal of the European theater) the allies weren't in any position to challenge an eastern power which had just demonstrated it's willingness to, as another poster put it, defeat it's enemies by drowning them in soviet blood. By the time the allies were in a position to challenge the Kremlin they had developed nuclear arms which changed the calculus considerably. It's interesting to consider what would have happened had nuclear weapons been impossible or impracticable to build - my guess is Europe and America would have burned itself back to the stone ages, and either the Chinese or the Japanese (depending on how the Pacific theater went between Iwo Jima and Tokyo) would be the lone 21st century superpower.

Also, the Germans aren't merely accused today, they've been accused, tried, and found guilty. History might be written by the victors, but your post is dangerously close to holocaust denialism.

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

So join us (Sweden), Norway and Denmark and form simply Scandinavia or something, pleaase =P.

I wonder if the danish people would really like that though, especially since their policy against foreign people is kinda different, though they have wanted to have us as part of them so often earlier so why not? :D

'Luckily' for us (swedes), Danmark is not part of the Scandinavian penisula. (actually i kinda like Danmark, but their treatment of immigrants are fucked up).

Re:In soviet union

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yet another socialist posting about Operation Barbarossa and downplaying the Winter War's significance.

I'd call defeating Stalin in -39 Celcius a victory anytime.

Re:In soviet union

[tpheiska]

Since I somehow managed to mess up posting two times with a long reply, I'll just write a few lines..

I don't deny the holocaust. Nazi regime killed over 10 million people, while the Soviets did away with approximately 20 million. Soviets ravaged their way throughout Europe and would have invaded Denmark if the Americans wouldn't have managed to get in their way. Yet the swastika is all but banned in the European union but the hammer and the sickle carry no such stigma.

The reason for my post was the GP who said Finland has nothing to be proud of. Finland was deceived and betrayed by France and the UK during the winter war, and later we were pulled to the German sphere of influence because that was basically the only thing we could do to save our independence. Your enemy's enemy is your friend.

Having said all this, take it with the grain of salt that I'm Finnish, and there's generally no love lost between Finns and Russians.

Holly Crap Fist Post

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our Nokia over lords!

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[RichardJenkins]

If I contracted out a translator to retype a French document in English, and I gave them my laptop to do it on I'd damn sure want to make sure I know everything he does on it.

I'd want to do the decent thing by making sure he knows that anything he does with the machine will be logged.

I think this is pretty reasonable, and I see a large corporation doing this as the same ethical situation - what is the problem here?

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[unlametheweak]

Listen son, in the Real World people don't have a choice in whether they can work to feed themselves or not. Unfortunately work takes up a disproportionate amount of time in one's life (despite computers and robots which were supposed to eliminate the need to work). Companies need to start accommodating workers instead of spying on them, stressing them out, and treating them like shit. A company like Nokia that will go out of its way to break the law in order to harm its employees should be forced to nationalize its assets (or at least have a suitable and similar punishment), unfortunately the people who run companies tend to be hypocrites and untrustful. We need to start spying on the executives of large companies, and not the other way around.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[bigtomrodney]

Please ignore - posting to undo moderation mishap.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with work mail is that we are quite heavy unionized here in Finland (even in IT sector which - I've heard - isn't as unionized on the other side of the Ocean). The union's representatives have full right and reason to use their work address to communicate with other employees regarding business with the union.

Employers should really not be allowed to snoop on this. Same goes for other info that you are allowed to use your work mail to but the employer shouldn't be allowed to read. For example, I (like a lot of Finns. We have decent universal healthcare but many employers make deals with private firms too) have healhcare paid by work. I don't think that still means I am not allowed to have confidentiality with my problem. And if I'm not, that should have been in the contract originally.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[cheftw]

mod parent up - most insightful thing all thread

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[alienw]

The union's representatives have full right and reason to use their work address to communicate with other employees regarding business with the union.

Um, why is that? Here in the US, unions generally cannot use employer resources to conduct union business. That makes sense, and obviates the privacy concerns anyone might have. Is it really that hard to register a Gmail account?

It's pretty ludicrous that in Finland you can just take confidential company information and use your work email to send it to a competitor. Not only is your company not allowed to look at the content of the emails you send, but they cannot even investigate WHO IT WAS SENT TO. This makes sense how?

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[gandhi_2]

In the US, we especially don't like tax-payer funded IT gear being used for union/political use.

The employer paid for it, they should get to dictate its use. If Nokia says "use work computers at own risk, we can see whatever you do on them", that is their prerogative. How'd you like it if you owned a company and employees were using the company vehicle for personal use...and YOU got in trouble for trying to get information about it? Nokia should leave Finland. A company SHOULD leave any place it finds a hostile environment.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[saigon_from_europe]

It's pretty ludicrous that in Finland you can just take confidential company information and use your work email to send it to a competitor.

If you want to sell confidential data to your company's competitor, it is very likely that you'll do it via your home internet account. Does it mean that Nokia should be able to read your private mail too?

It is some strange trend that companies become so paranoid. Treating employees like traitors will not help them in any way. Those who want to hurt the company will find the way to do it anyhow. For instance, good way to hurt your company is to ruin its public image by breaking laws and lobbying for ridiculous legislations.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know, that's what the police is for in some less fascist states. You suspect a crime, then you run to them, and they have the powers to investigate.

This new law giving the company more power than the police makes no sense.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[pxlmusic]

Of course, as in the US, $MultinationalCorp will get its way.

We're told that we should be lucky that we're even employed. We're told that we should just STFU and GBTW.

There is no real sense of loyalty to company or vice-versa anymore.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[pxlmusic]

And it's passed whether we want it or not. Many of these police and law enforcement entities exist only to justify their existence.

For example:

The rising instances of no-knock raids on wrong addresses supplied by informants just seeking a handout from the police. They perform these raids to justify the military-grade hardware they're packing. It's getting out of hand.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[cptdondo]

Yeah, well, and that attitude has kept the US at the forefront of individual freedom and liberty... Like, oh, habeas corpus.. No wait, they did away with that.. OK, freedom from snooping on phone conversations... Oh, they did away with that too. Like the ability to watch a DVD on my computer, or share music with my friends. No, wait, can't do that either.

What were you saying about leaving a hostile environment?

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[FlyingBishop]

The employees should have at least a modicum of control over the company. If the board of directors can control everything, that's a flat out oligopoly. In a country where large corporations have power on level with many nations, it's the only way to ensure democracy.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[alienw]

I'm sure they wouldn't be treating their employees like criminals if they weren't having a problem with industrial espionage. Like it or not, it is a reality, and security measures need to be taken. Most employees who spy for others are being paid to do so, and the financial incentive is generally stronger than loyalty to their employer.

In any case, I see nothing ridiculous about an employer auditing the internal e-mail system. Hell, in the US, companies are often required to keep an archive of all internal mail for legal accountability. Internal mail and other computing resources are supposed to be used for business purposes; there is no expectation of privacy there.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[twostix]

"Nokia should leave Finland."

WHAT? You've got some strange ideas my friend. So how's that work exactly? Does the executive move overseas (boohoo)? The employees? How does a multinational company 'leave' a country? And what will they do with their employees who actually make the company anything more than just a VC Firm? Fire them? Then what? So they've got a nice Nokia Trademark and no one to do anything with it. Oh and watch their share price go to 0.

Think the world and shareholders will wait and forgive their debts while they start from fresh?

"A company SHOULD leave any place it finds a hostile environment."

What does that mean exactly? Nokia started in Finland, grew and thrived under the laws as they stand so I guess that it's not that 'hostile'. And of course it's just *that* easy for a multibillion dollar company to pick up and leave and start fresh in a foreign nation, which of course would have it's own set of laws and regulations to work under.

Or do you mean "A company SHOULD leave any place whose government wont do exactly as its told when it's told by the tiny group of people, many who are foreigners, that make up it's shareholders."? Because that's all that amounts too.

Companies are just tiny groups of citizens working together under various pieces of legislation. The construct of a company has no inherent 'rights' and most constitutions don't even mention them. So why do you, and people like you, keep trying to tell us that companies have some sort of power and place alongside (and usually elevated above) private citizens? Companies in each individual country have exactly the rights given to them by citizens of that country via their government, no more and no less.

Companies can't tap employee phones or open letters addressed to employees, so why would email be any different?

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[tapanitarvainen]

Is it really that hard to register a Gmail account?

The proposed law would allow snooping that, too, if you access it from company network. It would also allow tracking Skype calls &c.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[tapanitarvainen]

I'm sure they wouldn't be treating their employees like criminals if they weren't having a problem with industrial espionage. Like it or not, it is a reality, and security measures need to be taken.

There's a reason allright, but it's not so much industrial espionage, but fear of bad/uncontrolled publicity - in two ways: first, employees communicating with journalists, second, they want to handle leaks hush-hush by themselves, without the publicity legal proceedings would cause, and without having to care about whether or not any laws have actually been broken. In other words, they want their own law, policed by themselves and judged by themselves without any annoying public overview.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[Fred_A]

Unfortunately work takes up a disproportionate amount of time in one's life (despite computers and robots which were supposed to eliminate the need to work). Companies need to start accommodating workers instead of spying on them, stressing them out, and treating them like shit.

But Nokia *likes* to connect to people !

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[thannine]

That is just complete and utter bullshit. The law wouldn't allow the to read your mail either, they could only check who you sent it to. Which btw I think a company should be allowed to do. It's the company's email system, intended to be used as a tool to get your work done. WHY should the company not be allowed to monitor it? You have every right to your privacy, but you work is not private. Your tools are not meant for private communications, so don't use them for that.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[nazsco]

mod parent up - most correctly constructed sentence.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[nazsco]

that shouldn't be the case.

I work for one company that was trying to move one of the Lodon offices to Swiss(?) for tax(?) purposes.

it turned out that after one year of trying, most good employees just quit and found work somewhere else in the UK.

In the end they gave up and kept the offices at London.

Now, Finland should be more ballsy. that's for sure. And if nokia moves to country X and country X agrees to that law, then Finland should bash country X at every conference possible.

That alone would make me rather keep working at Finland.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia should leave Finland. A company SHOULD leave any place it finds a hostile environment.

Look a bit further than your nose... Nokia is in Finland because it _is_ a friendly environment. The benefits of things like free university education should be obvious but I can see a positive side to strict privacy laws as well: when you show people you trust them, they generally act trustworthy. I know the dangers of generalization, but IMO finns tend to be exactly that...

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[RichardJenkins]

That's a rant, good for letting off steam but doesn't really do much to move debate forward.

The questions I'm looking to address are:

  * Is it morally acceptable to do the type of monitoring I described in my hypothetical employment scenario
  * Is so, is there a difference in the ethical situation when a large corporate does the same things.

I think the answers are yes and no respectively. I suspect lots of people here will think yes and yes - specifically because or a belief that being a large corporations means it is right to have more restrictive rules applied to you than individuals. I take my opinion because I think any intrusions the Govenment makes on the liberty of companies will tend to be applied to individuals too over time.

My preferred method of limiting this type of spying would be to have it so people considered it unacceptable and a reason to leave and get a job with another company. I recognise that won't always be possible for everyone but if should be the case that if a company treats it's employees 'like shit' then their reaction will put the company at a disadvantage.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[unlametheweak]

That's a rant, good for letting off steam but doesn't really do much to move debate forward.

You're not "looking" very deeply into my observations.

Is it morally acceptable to do the type of monitoring I described in my hypothetical employment scenario

It depends, but I would err on the side of caution and say no (for the reasons already stated or implied). Of course if you don't trust the person you employ then you shouldn't have hired him in the first place, or just do things yourself (I generally tend to do things for myself despite the sometimes large learning curves involved. Unfortunately it's not practical for me to fill dental cavities or perform other medical procedures so I have to use extreme caution when dealing with medical issues, but that's another story...). Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that you can't change human nature and that two wrongs don't make a right.

[If] so, is there a difference in the ethical situation when a large corporate does the same things.

Of course there are differences, which should be obvious. For emphasis, in the corporate scenario:
1) There is a bureaucracy that can too easily scape goat an individual when detailed logs are kept (it only takes a good HRM or lawyer to find a phallic symbol in a cigar).
2) The corporate scenario assumes that this is a full time job. While people can live under the stress of surveillance for short periods of time without undo medical or psychological damage, this is too unfair for the employee to deal with in a corporate environment. People don't need to work themselves to death, and employees shouldn't feel compelled to stress out their employees either. It's bizarre and irrational. Since stress is the leading cause of death (way behind cigarettes, video games, and STDs. Though right wing government/corporate advertising would have you believe otherwise) it would make sense not to stress employees out since death is by its nature uneconomic and anti-capitalist.

Without thinking too hard I came up with just two very good points right off the top of my head.

I think the answers are yes and no respectively.

Rhetoric. You're comparing two different scenarios with (supposedly) different assumptions. You're doing this in an apparent attempt to make a point. It's weak. Again, I would never hire a contractor I couldn't trust, or if I had no choice I'd have him use his own computer. Again, this is just weak argumentation you've set up.

Sometimes wrong is just wrong. A work place is a second home with a second family. Just ask any Human Resource Manager and they will tell you with a big smile on their face that you are a valued, important and trusted member of the corporate family. Family members don't sneak into their child's room looking for drugs or reading their diary.

Best regards,

UTW

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[RichardJenkins]

I can't find data on causes of death amongst working age people but I don't believe you that stress is at the top (I think that's what you meant, the brackets after that sentence make your meaning unclear). Also, analogising a company who has a contract with you and monitors your use of their equipment with a family member reading a child's diary based on the assumption that every HRM would describe the workforce as a 'corporate family' is...Well, it's enough to say your mastery of rhetoric trumps mine. I suspect you may have thrown that in ironically.

Nevertheless allot of what you say seems pretty reasonable. I'm not convinced that using legislation to restrict a company's monitoring of an employees use of their equipment is for the best, but am certainly more receptive to the idea.

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[unlametheweak]

I can't find data on causes of death amongst working age people but I don't believe you that stress is at the top (I think that's what you meant, the brackets after that sentence make your meaning unclear).

I'll elaborate (but not too much). In (statistical) populations where there are strong social ties (i.e. families drink together, employees smoke with their bosses) people tend to outlive average people who otherwise live "healthy lifestyles" (i.e. low fat diets, no smoking, etc). So in other words heavy smokers tend to outlive "healthy life-style" puritans when their environments are stress free. And stress "damages and kills brain cells." (ref. http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/stress.html).

So if you see that heart disease, lung cancer etc is high on the statistical scale you need to remember that stress lowers the immune system, constricts blood vessels, causes heart disease, etc and so on. In other words if a casual observer lists a persons cause of death as lung cancer do to smoking then chances are that person is making a lot of assumptions without doing any research. Stress is a killer, but unfortunately it is a silent killer because it is invisible. I couldn't find specific statistics myself, but there is enough secondary knowledge that I have to make me put intellectual weight into that idea. People ("scientists", "journalists", and your average Joe Schmuck) often overlook the more ubiquitous and less obvious for an easy scape goat. At the very least I merely ask people to question there own assumptions. The easy answer isn't often the correct answer. So maybe you get my point, or maybe I need to elaborate to the point of boredom. I'll leave smoking as a (good) example merely because it is so disagreeable to the majority of people (in the Western world). So, to link things together, I will merely say that simple answers (like spying on employees) are almost always the wrong approach. It would be better to put one's time and energy to positive solutions rather than negative outcomes.

your mastery of rhetoric trumps mine.

Thanks -:)

Re:Holly Crap Fist Post

[CortoMaltese]

First, the law covers not only companies but also entities such as libraries, schools, hospitals, universities - even the parliament itself!

Second, the law covers all electronic communication, not only email.

Third, why should the above mentioned entities be allowed to snoop all electronic communication with just notification to the authorities while the police needs a court order for the same information?

Fourth, it is usually okay in Finland to use company mail and phone for your private communication to a reasonable extent. If your employer gives you a mobile phone to use and pays your bills, in most cases you have to pay taxes for that because it is expected that you use it for private purposes.

Fifth, why shouldn't electronic communication enjoy the same privacy as is guaranteed to snail mail? If I receive mail at the company with my name first and company second, nobody will open it without my permission. It's another story if the company name is first and my name is second. Also, if I put my private (and self paid) mail into a company outgoing mail folder, it is unfathomable that the company would even try to scan all the from and to addresses of the mail.

dam

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia is one company I don't want to have to boycott.

Doesn't seem I have a choice any more.

The Lesson Is...

[cc_pirate]

Any corporation that is big enough and has enough money, can get the politicians they buy to do anything for them, regardless of the effects on the rest of us.

The average person is nothing but a 21st century serf and the corporations are the royalty.

The scenery and technology has changed since the 1700s, but not much else has.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[characterZer0]

The difference is that the employees can quit and get other jobs and the customers can buy other products.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

" An anonymous reader adds a link to an AFP story reporting that Nokia has threatened to pull out of Finland unless the law passes. "

Some might see this as a superpower threatening to destroy Finland's economy. Others might see it as a tyrant offering to leave.

Lawmakers, if you don't want to see your country on the leash of a business, stop worrying about your campaign losing its funding. Your job is to the people and their innate human rights.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory yes,
In practice not so much

Re:The Lesson Is...

[DreamsAreOkToo]

The difference is that the employees can quit and get other jobs and the customers can buy other products.

Absolutely! Would you like Exxon gas or Mobile gas for your car? What kind of Microsoft computer do you want to use at work? Would you prefer AT&T spying on your, or Comcast?

How about working freelance or starting your own business? Just make sure you don't ever do anything that a large corporation doesn't want you to do, or you will be held [1]personally liable! Also, don't get sick, because you won't have any health care! Who cares that our great leader, Big Brother, isn't held up to these standards? After all, he did such a great job last year, we personally gave him a 16.9 billion dollar bonus! I know that was the best $100 of my tax money I ever spent!

[1]http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/30/2032236

Re:The Lesson Is...

[cc_pirate]

Even if you've never worked for a corporation in your life, you are still at the mercy of their whims when they buy politicians and laws (which they do constantly).

That still makes you a peon and the corporations the royalty anyway you look at it.

Maybe you can be the village blacksmith (Consultant) rather than the Baron's whipping boy (corporate programmer), but that still doesn't make you any less subject to the whims of the law put in place by the Royalty.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The average person is nothing but a 21st century serf and the corporations are the royalty.

Maybe, but I would say the corporations are our feudal overlords, with royalty above them.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[phosphorylate this]

Does a realistic perspective really make an argument not worth reading?

There have been many places and times since 15th century europe where people have been reduced to a "serflike" state, modern Finns ain't close to it though. The workers of 20th-century european colonial possessions or soviet russia perhaps?

Re:The Lesson Is...

[ultrabot]

Others might see it as a tyrant offering to leave.

Lawmakers, if you don't want to see your country on the leash of a business, stop worrying about your campaign losing its funding. Your job is to the people and their innate human rights.

Still, it's more important to keep our programmers fed and employed, rather than keeping the secrets about secretary's day lotion under lock and key.

The "true piracy hardcores" seem to be taking a break (anonymizers, etc), and now we are meddling with "soft" security. It's not the important kind of security, judging simply by the fact that anyone can get to that data if they wanted. I'm sure Nokia has had some bad exeriences with data leakage, and if they have the tools to home in on whoever did it, they should be able to use it... to partake in appropriate punitive measures.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[msormune]

Oh so people still die of diseases in their 30's like in 18th century? How about equality between women and men, just to name a few differences?

And how about NOT using company email for personal purposes, but something like gmail? Just set up a email account OUTSIDE your company, and be happy ever after.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buying politicians" used to be called "bribing" and also used to be illegal.

WTF happened?

Re:The Lesson Is...

[tsm_sf]

So what are you saying, laws are for little people?

Re:The Lesson Is...

[lee1026]

Their right to eat, for example?

Re:The Lesson Is...

[unlametheweak]

The difference is that the employees can quit and get other jobs and the customers can buy other products.

Yeah employees have choices; they can quit, they can go postal, they can suck cock, etc. Unfortunately the choices that most employees have are often just as negative or worse than doing nothing.

And yes, customers can stop buying from Walmart to stop the economic collapse of their towns. This doesn't happen for some strange economic reason. They (the smiling minimum wage Walmart Worker) will sell you the rope to hang yourself, and at bargain prices.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Lost Engineer]

Umm GP doesn't have a signature, and you brought religion in to this. I'm confused.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[ultrabot]

So what are you saying, laws are for little people?

I'm saying: if nokia really thinks they need this, they can implement it inside their own IT infrastructure if they want. If that is the alternative to shipping the jobs to india / china, I'm all for it - because this scheme doesn't really hurt people who know how the system works, and can take precautions with mails they send. Amend this with "for personal emails use gmail", and it's as humane as needs to be.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[ThinkTwicePostOnce]

Their PR person speaking to the press, as opposed to their lobbyists speaking to Finland's
legislators, clearly states they have no plans to leave Finland.

I suggest the legislators state, with equal assuredness, that they have no plans to nationalize Nokia.

Apparently an employee emailed confidential engineering documents to a competitor in China, and Nokia is unable to prevent themselves from investigating in an illegal manner. Maybe they'd have an easier time doing their snooping on the Chinese end, where snooping is not only legal, but practially the national pasttime!

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Hurricane78]

Exactly. Else they would not be big enough to pull it of in the first place.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of whether you find it harmless in this specific instance or not, ignoring the constitution just because it's convenient for a company doesn't set a very good precedent, now does it?

Re:The Lesson Is...

[tftp]

Apparently an employee emailed confidential engineering documents to a competitor in China, and Nokia is unable to prevent themselves from investigating in an illegal manner.

Nokia would need to spy on the entire country of Finland then (and on a couple neighboring ones) because it takes a honest but misguided person, or a stupid person, to email confidential documents to a competitor from his desk at work, using company's email services. A real spy would copy the materials on a Flash disk, and encrypt them before sending anywhere, and send from home or from an Internet cafe.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Guy Harris]

How about working freelance or starting your own business? ... Also, don't get sick, because you won't have any health care!

Umm, not in the country to which the original article was referring.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[erroneus]

I think you are looking at the quality of life of today's serfs and declaring them not-serfs simply because they have modern conveniences and distractions. This only makes them happier, very busy and distracted serfs... serfs with "something to lose" are less likely to fight back than serfs with nothing to lose. This is a great lesson that government and business has learned over the centuries.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[alienw]

And yes, customers can stop buying from Walmart to stop the economic collapse of their towns.

Well, a town whose economy consists entirely of selling household goods is very much overdue for an economic collapse. By this logic, we should ban computers to keep the typewriter companies in business. Hell, Wal-mart generally pays a lot better than small locally-owned retailers in small towns. A lot of those places employ illegals, or work off the books and don't pay taxes.

  I mean, sure, you might enjoy buying your groceries from some shady hole-in-the-wall outfit that charges outrageous prices. But most people don't.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[gandhi_2]

Well, a town whose economy consists entirely of selling household goods is very much overdue for an economic collapse.

Aside from housing construction, you just summed up the Utah economy in a nutshell.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[an unsound mind]

Wrong country, moron.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is technology. Social progress on the other hand is hardly progress at all. It's mostly cyclical and the names change a lot, but it's still all about power over people and using it for personal gain.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia isn't allowed to implement it inside their own IT infrastructure. That's what they want changed. The law isn't meant to install any snooping beyond the intranet, "only" to allow in-company snooping. It is not a matter of ensuring proper behavior in official communication. They want to snoop to uncover industrial espionage, so no communication path that isn't logged will be available to their employees.

Of course that law won't just allow Nokia to do this, but all other companies as well.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[an unsound mind]

Mod parent up. They can block any other route for information to leave, except this, because of the law.

The PROBLEM with this law is that this allows ANY community internet provider to do the same snooping - schools, libraries - and the problem with this article is that kdawson is a moron.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[Hells]

If you cant beat them - join them. Own stocks.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[DZComposer]

Somebody please mod parent up. This is the whole point.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[cc_pirate]

The Romans knew that they had to keep the plebes in line with Bread and Circuses.

Nowadays our "Bread and Circuses" are McDonalds and plasma TVs with the Superbowl...

Re:The Lesson Is...

[stephanruby]

Aside from housing construction, you just summed up the Utah economy in a nutshell.

I thought Utah was the largest exporter of religion. Ten percent of your followers income, that's a pretty nice cash flow.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[thannine]

They don't have to buy any politicians, you know. The annual turnover of Nokia is bigger than the whole finnish government's budget. When you're in that situation you don't have to buy anyone, you don't have to threaten anyone, you just need to hint that some legislature would be nice to have. And the law will pass.

Re:The Lesson Is...

[pipatron]

By this logic, we should ban computers to keep the typewriter companies in business.

Well they are trying to ban privacy to keep the record industry in business.

Boycott

[Hogwash McFly]

My mobile phone is due for an upgrade. It looks like Nokia join Sony-Ericcson on the blacklist; they can all get fucked. I guess it's a Samsung this time. If only all the 13 year old girls sending a million texts a month and those jackasses constantly yakking into their mobiles actually cared about corporate ethics, then such a boycott may actually be meaningful.

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're looking for a cheap, lightweight, long-lasting (more than a week of light usage between charges) just-a-phone, I love my Samsung SGH-C260. Not sure if there's a US version though, as mine is a European dual-band.

Re:Boycott

[Godji]

What did SE do?

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

They share a corporate overlord with Sony BMG, which is one of the prime funders of the MAFIAA.

Re:Boycott

[iNaya]

They're associated with Sony, who also own Sony BMG, part of the RIAA, and installed rootkits on lots of unaware users' computers. That's all I can remember I'm sure they've done other things too.

Re:Boycott

[Lost Engineer]

Get a blackberry. I just got one, they're cool, and I don't think RIM ever spied on anybody.*

*I am not in any way associated with RIM or Blackberry beyond my data plan.

Re:Boycott

[ultrabot]

My mobile phone is due for an upgrade. It looks like Nokia join Sony-Ericcson on the blacklist; they can all get fucked.

You are not a frequent reader? In the last few weeks, Nokia put Qt out under LGPL. The good karma earned through that action alone should be enough for us to ignore strongarm political tactics (and small PR disasters) for a while.

Re:Boycott

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Putting Qt's move from GPL to LGPL above the small matter of strongarming an unconstitutional surveillance law seems a trifle... Myopic, perhaps?

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they released a toolkit under the LGPL. They can do no wrong now!

Praise Jebus!

Re:Boycott

[PinkyGigglebrain]

So if Pol Pot had donated a few million dollars to the Red Cross it would have made the slaughter of millions of his people OK?

Not flaming and I know its an extreme example. I'm just pointing out that one good deed does not excuse violating the Law. Nokia's on my list now,

Re:Boycott

[MoellerPlesset2]

Well that's effing ridiculous, isn't it? Sony-Ericsson has nothing to do with Sony-BMG.
For all intents and purposes, they're completely separate companies. Just with (partially) the same owner, and the same brand name.

Why would you 'punish' Sony-Ericsson for a business decision they had nothing to do with at all?

Re:Boycott

[an unsound mind]

Boycott? BS.

I'm Finnish and big on privacy, but the /. article about this is just FUD.

Essentially, the law says "the corporation has the right to monitor what employees do with corporation resources". Frankly, in most countries that's given.

And to boot, it's completely unconfirmed that any threatening happened - everyone officially denies it.

Re:Boycott

[mgblst]

Where have you been?

Sony is one of the worst companies in the world. This is even worse than normal, because they used to be one of the greatest engineering companies of all time (much like HP), they fell from grace when they started doing stupid shit like handicapping their MD music device and all other devices, including root kits on CDs, pretending they support MP3 when they didn't, creating their own non-standard and inferior memory format, etc...

Re:Boycott

[Merls the Sneaky]

"Just with (partially) the same owner, and the same brand name."

So Sony-BMG gets some money from from Sony-Ericsson, if not directly they do get support from the parent company.

Personally I will not touch anything Sony branded. That means the closest thing I will get to HD video will be downloaded or upscaled then fine by me. The sooner the company tanks and fold the better IMO, I will not hold my breath though. ;)

Re:Boycott

[ScrewMaster]

they fell from grace when they started doing stupid shit like

No, they fell from grace when they decided to be a media company. Just like, as in your example, HP decided be a YAPCM (Yet Another PC Manufacturer) instead of sticking to what they did, and did well. Sony had a Sony Way, as HP had an HP Way, and when they strayed from that path, they became lesser for it.

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

The good karma earned through that action alone should be enough for us to ignore strongarm political tactics (and small PR disasters) for a while.

Why?

I think it's the opposite -- these tactics alone are enough to override the good karma from LGPL'ing QT.

The constitution and the rights of the individual do not have a price. Even if it's 1.3 billion euros.

Count me in on the permanent boycott.

  -A Finnish AC

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're boycotting Nokia for that, don't even touch anything from Samsung. The fact that Nokia has actually had to LOBBY for the law tells a lot about what Nokia can or cannot do in Finland.

As for Samsung, they don't even have to lobby. They snoop on their employees all the time, and I don't mean reading e-mail headers. I mean following their footsteps home, watching who talks with who at work, and tracing their cell-phone signals. And when they do that, law enforcement officers (not just cops, I mean prosecutors, judges, and laywers) conveniently look some other way.

Just think of it: labor union is legal (hah!) in Korea, yet no Samsung company has any labor union whatsoever. How come? It takes something more than strictly legal means to enforce such a thing...

- Your friendly South Korean

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, the law says "the corporation has the right to monitor what employees do with corporation resources". Frankly, in most countries that's given.

Incidentally, then that's a problem with most countries. There is no reason to implement the mistakes of others.

And to boot, it's completely unconfirmed that any threatening happened - everyone officially denies it.

Why would any reasonable person take an official position at face value? Of course they officially deny that any threatening took place. So would you in their shoes, and so would I. Regardless of what actually occurred or didn't occur.

However, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is being forcefully rammed through even though it is unconstitutional. This is not the proper process for making laws in a first-world democratic state.

Everything else is just a red herring.

  -A Finnish AC

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no major mobile phone company that does not monitor employee communications.

And don't use Google. Google pretty darn surely monitors that employees are not distributing the search engine code around the Internet.

In a true constitutional republic

[nightfire-unique]

... Nokia's assets would be seized, their senior employees and lobbyists arrested, and the company shut down.

Threat of a corporation leaving? Seriously? That's enough to violate the foundation of the Finnish constitutional republic?

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[not flu]

You don't seem to comprehend how big an economical impact that would have on a country of 5 million people.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the VP of lobbying is ex prime minister? In Nokia it is so.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying it was blackmail? Is blackmail OK? Why would it be OK for a big corporation?

This kind of law, let alone this kind of behaviour, sets a very scary precedent.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[base3]

The threat of pulling out should be sufficient grounds to place the company's officers located in Finland as flight risks to ensure they stand trial should they be unsuccessful in buying the new law.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[base3]

Forgot two words; the above should read "under arrest as flight risks"

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[sabernet]

Solution: Nokia is attempting to extort the gov't to draw a custom law for them.

So the gov't nationalizes Nokia as part of a law they would draw up instead that states that Corps attempting extort the gov't should be nationalized.

Sure it doesn't sound fair and is, itself, a scary precedent. But it's no scarier then letting Nokia run a privately owned country and would certainly teach the CEO a thing or two about fucking with the people who grew his company up.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[fastest fascist]

Arrested for what? I'm not sure there is a law forbidding company representatives from saying their company will leave if the legislative environment of a country is not changed to their liking.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[base3]

For violation of the law as it currently stands -- if the company or its officers are likely to face charges, and they've threatened to "pull out" of Finland, that demonstrates a flight risk.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Shakrai]

So the gov't nationalizes Nokia as part of a law they would draw up instead that states that Corps attempting extort the gov't should be nationalized.

and would certainly teach the CEO a thing or two about fucking with the people who grew his company up.

So your purposed method of teaching the CEO "a thing or two" is to punish a few million shareholders, including (in all likelihood if you have any mutual funds) yourself? What could possibly go wrong?

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. People are allowed to leave if they don't like the product (that includes goods, services, employment and countries) they're getting so why can't corporations?

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[eiapoce]

A politician sold to the private sector is not breaking news. Obama just took in his staff a MAFIAA lawyer...

It would not be a problem if people were given proper information and the possibility to vote honest politicians (utopia).

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[sabernet]

Shareholders citizens

And even at that, I'm sure something a bit more officially drawn would consider such problems and offset them at least to some extent.

But freedoms are more valuable then propping up those who prop up those who take those freedoms away.

Hell, if it goes south, just blame it on the "economic downturn" like every other company is nowadays.

But all I'm saying is it goes both ways. The gov't doesn't have to bend over and take it from Nokia(though I'm sure many within it will gladly sell themselves to do so as with any gov't).

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[sabernet]

interesting, I distinctly saw the "smaller then" sign on the preview.

It should have read "Shareholders < citizens"

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Carewolf]

If you have committed a crime, tried to blackmail the government trying to legalize your criminal actions. No as person, I do not think you would be allowed to leave, and I don't think they will just take your passport.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you must be myopic, because it's "smaller thAn".

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[Wilson_6500]

In this day and age, if Nokia really is that important of a part of the country's economy, the lawmakers could probably get away with calling them economic terrorists.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[rtb61]

I really think people should take a deep breath and look at historical precedent. E-mail or electronic mail, to use it full term, at work is the same as sending an old written letter, using company stationary, with a company letterhead in a company marked envelope and using a company stamp. Originally employees by far the majority of employees did not fold, envelope stuff, stamp lick and post the correspondence, mots of them didn't even type the message.

All letters from a company where reviewed by other staff members prior to being sent, as such, the same really applies to modern email. It just needs to be made clear to the staff upon a continual basis that all company email will be reviewed to ensure to complies with company policy as the company is responsible for all communications leaving that company.

As for staff members, with mobile cellular internet access, carrying in a net book for conducting private communications is the go, in your lunch break of course ;). Now that, of course the company can not touch. To be clear, monitoring of company communications oddly enough has to be restricted to defined company premises, otherwise arse hole corporate executives will want to pay for their employees domestic phone service so that the corporation can claim it as a company asset and monitor the employees 24/7.

As for threatening to leave, that is yet another definitive demonstration of why the size of corporations should be limited by law, every effort should be made to ensure that an single corporation going bankrupt or leaving the country only has a very limited impact on the economy. So beyond a certain size, let the share holders foot the bill rather than the general public for a corruptly run billion dollar corporation.

Re:In a true constitutional republic

[ultranova]

Threat of a corporation leaving? Seriously? That's enough to violate the foundation of the Finnish constitutional republic?

Hey, caving in to threats is a step up for Finnish politicians. Usually they are actively looking for opportunities to bend over in the hopes that Russia, EU or the USA will pay attention to them and make them feel important, rather than the insignificant leaders of an insignificant country they really are. They're attention whores in all the meanings of the term.

I remember when USA was gearing towards attacking Afghanistan, when these morons publicly speculating that there's a line between these two countries which passes Finnish airspace, and that the US could use it to conduct bombing runs (from bases in the US to the Afghanistan - WTF?). That was beyond pathetic: "Please! Use our airspace! We beg of you!".

A few more laws for Nokia to consider

[syousef]

- Law to force phone manufacturers to make their keys on their phones large enough for an adult male to operate without using a thimble

- Law to make phones water resistant. Currently all Nokia phones have a minature water detector linked to a self destruct mechanism

- Law to ensure annoying bugs in firmware are dealt with in a timely manner. No, not by releasing an updated model that you have to buy at full price because you're still on contract with the buggy phone.

- Law to ensure that the loudspeaker function doesn't change (and in particular isn't replaced with a cancel call button) between making a call and the call being connected.

- Law to ensure the phone doesn't require speakerphone to be activated before a human being is able to actually hear what's said. Phones shouldn't be built for magical leprechauns that live inside them

- Law to ensure that the duration of a call is logged in the call log, not just for the last call.

Re:A few more laws for Nokia to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if parent live underwater. Nokia is based in Finland, there's nothing but snow and rain up here.

The phone isn't meant too hold if you drop it in the toilet, there are proper phones with that feature.

Re:A few more laws for Nokia to consider

[syousef]

Shorter parent: I'm fat, clumsy, and deaf. Wah!

Yes, since being short, clumsy and deaf causes firmware bugs too.

Re:A few more laws for Nokia to consider

[syousef]

I wonder if parent live underwater.

Did I forget to mention that I'm a dolphin? I'm sorry!

The phone isn't meant too hold if you drop it in the toilet, there are proper phones with that feature.

So you admit that Nokia doesn't make "proper phones".

I love some of the features on my phone but I'd give half of them up for something more resilient. Take a look at the forums. Many phones will handle 2 seconds in water if they're carefully dried out.

Re:A few more laws for Nokia to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

The 6010 is water resistant

you mean there are places that DO respect privacy?

[TheGratefulNet]

wait. I'm confused.

there is still a country on earth that has SOME kind of privacy laws that protect individuals from those in greater power (employers, government, etc)?

the heck with nokia leaving finland. I want to MOVE THERE!

Not just Nokia or employers in general

[Zarhan]

While the right for employee to monitor your net usage while you are using employer's systems is up for debate, this bill is much worse.

The bill doesn't mention e-mail, or workplace.

It only contains words of "community subscriber" and "identifying information, but not content".

So, universities and schools can monitor what students do on the Internet. Over any protocol, not just e-mail. Who do they call on VoIP. What websites they visit. Same applies for libraries. Or even community housing.

Re:Not just Nokia or employers in general

[MoellerPlesset2]

So, universities and schools can monitor what students do on the Internet.

In Sweden, and to a similar extent in Finland, there is no privacy within public institutions - such as universities. All public documents (meaning those produced by _any_ public institution) are public record unless specifically ruled otherwise (e.g. national security, relations to a foreign power, etc).

As a Swedish university employee, all my email at my university address is a matter of public record. Not only can my boss read it, any member of the public can come in and ask for a copy, no questions asked. (That said, this has never actually happened to me. But there are legal implications for data retention, etc)

Re:Not just Nokia or employers in general

[sakusha]

And similarly, in the US, corporate email is considered the property of the corporation and employees have no expectation of privacy for emails and work produced on corporate owned hardware.

Re:Not just Nokia or employers in general

[Anonymous Coward]

The law in the US is stupid.

You don't cease to be human when you enter your working place. You do expect to be treated humanly, and human rights do include a right to privacy (which is curiously a very lacking right in the US because of the stupidity that your Constitution mentions other basic rights and they are therefore _always_ considered to override any concerns not mentioned in the Constitution -- including privacy). I think that in any free country, you need to be treated as a human being in any place where you spend half of your time you are awake. No, the employer doesn't own our asses. That would be slave labor, selling yourself to get your daily bread.

Ok, I admit I do think you have a nice constitution. But you Americans in general worship it way too much, and think that it's perfect as it is -- no, you cannot balance freedom of speech or right to property with privacy in the US, only because the former two are rights enshrined in your constitution and hence always, always trump privacy. There's nothing wrong with the rights granted by the constitution (yeah, I remember they are theoretically not granted but God-given or something, and that's part of the stupidity), but with the idea that they trump all other concerns.

Of course, otherwise it wouldn't be a constitution, and I think you are better off with it than without. Just don't be so myopic about it being perfect.

Promises

[unlametheweak]

an AFP story reporting that Nokia has threatened to pull out of Finland unless the law passes.

Let them go. Companies that hurt a country should not be tolerated. Only companies that are useful should be welcomed. A corrupt company leaving a country is not a "threat" ("a source of danger").

Re:Promises

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree the politicians shouldn't cave in, but I think Nokia represents like a third of the value of their stock market, so it's kind of a big deal.

Re:Promises

[geekymachoman]

They probably don't want to let them go, since they probably give a lot of money to their government. It's easyer to just take away something from the people, it always has been, and the governemnts are and where always doing it.

Re:Promises

[unlametheweak]

I agree the politicians shouldn't cave in, but I think Nokia represents like a third of the value of their stock market, so it's kind of a big deal.

I remember that during the dot-com boom Nortel was valued similarly in Canada. Due to the inevitable accounting scandals and the dot-com bust Nortel is now (relatively) insignificant. Canada survived the loss of one of its most valued companies. I'm sure that there are enough competent, moral, and law abiding companies or entrepreneurs that can fill the void without asking for government handouts (moral and legal handouts like Nokia is asking for, or financial handouts that the corrupt and incompetent banking industry asks for). Sometimes you need to cull the elephants if they get too aggressive and start encroaching where they shouldn't (I know it's not a great metaphor, but it works).

Re:Promises

[Darinbob]

It seems the threat to leave may not have been made. Depending upon who you believe.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1135243223086

To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, in Finland, it is illegal to monitor emails of employees who are using company equipment and the company network. This is, of course, completely absurd.

All Nokia wants is the ability to see the the following information: Sender, Receiver, Size and Type of Attachments, and Date/Time. They don't even want to read the contents.

They have a reason to believe that an employee used their own email system to sell their IP.

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

Re:To Clarify

[TeknoHog]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

I wonder why this cannot be a simple contract issue. When you sign up for a job, you're giving up a lot of rights anyway.

Re:To Clarify

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

Depends. Some countries have logical restrictions on what can be covered by a contract.

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why this cannot be a simple contract issue. When you sign up for a job, you're giving up a lot of rights anyway.

Because of, umm, y'know, LAWS!

You cannot have a contract contrary to LAW, even if all parties agree.

Re:To Clarify

[Fluffy Bunnies]

You cannot sign away your rights in Finland. There are strict rules about what an employment contract (or any other contract for that matter) can legally include.

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

What's absurd about that?

Re:To Clarify

[Falconhell]

Yes, It does.

Re:To Clarify

[Night64]

In Brazil, is completely legal to a company or organization monitor email or any other traffic sent from or to company servers. The company has to make a public statement regarding that they monitor all traffic, and that's all. In my opinion, that's fair. Company time, company data. In my house, however, that's a completely different issue.

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me more about these rules.

Re:To Clarify

[geekymachoman]

Why would someone use corporate mail for selling their IP or whatever ?

Anyone with a half of brain, wouldn't do it, and I guess, those who would, aren't working there.

1. Work
2. Go home
3. Send nokia secrets to someone, from some public webmail stuff, with temporary email adress.

You don't have to be a geek for that.

What is really going on, is that the government and corporations are slowly training people, to accept their rules, and their way. First there are rfid, then electronic passports/licenses and stuff, then spying on e-mail, corporate, then syping on private email, then putting some micro GPS devices on those elec. passports (when we invent them), then .. use your imagination.

People can't accept a radical change of their rights, but they can accept small ones. Drop by drop, ocean.

Re:To Clarify

[saigon_from_europe]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

I still don't understand how this kind of monitoring does any help in running the company?

Re:To Clarify

[ogdenk]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

Yes. If you have reason to suspect the individual, you can ask him to turn over the e-mails or ask him to leave. Going behind someone's back and spying on them creates undue stress and a backstabbing working environment where noone can trust anyone. Been there. Done that.

A corporation doesn't have the right to step on the rights of individuals just because the individual has been granted the "privilege" to make them money.

If the government isn't supposed to do it on a whim, why should the company be allowed to?

Corporations do not deserve rights. People deserve rights.

Re:To Clarify

[ogdenk]

Almost makes me want to move there. I'm getting a little sick of the situation in the US.

They get to treat me like shit and then the government gives them all of my tax dollars.

Re:To Clarify

[luvirini]

Basically, no agreement or normal law can infringe on the rights given in the constitution, unless there is a law that is passed either by 5/6 majority of the parliament, or by 2/3 majority by two parliamants(with general election in between) that says that this special case is ok.

One of the rights in the constitution is cummunications privacy.

The biggest controversy about this law is that it is going to be passed as normal law, not constitutional law.

The second controversy is that it gives organisations, not only companies by places like libraries and such so much more rights than the police has. (There has to be a reason to believe that a serious crime is being commited for the police to get the same info)

Re:To Clarify

[twostix]

"Large companies" (as though they're somehow special) can't tap the phone lines and listen to employee phone calls made on company phones.

The same thing applying to email seems perfectly rational to me, not absurd like you presumptuously assert.

Employees aren't servants, companies exist to serve and if a company is formed where the law of the land says a private entity can't snoop on any private citizens communications then that is that.

And to head you off at the pass (oh but the company OWNS the servers) so what? The company owns this chair I'm sitting in but that doesn't give them any right to strip search me. Selling your labour to someone in no way shape or form gives them any inherent right or power to violate a citizens own personal rights. As in working for a company doesn't mean they can snoop on my communication, search my house, search my car, imprison me, take my firstborn, kill me, etc.

In most countries companies are still seen as subservient legal entities whose needs come miles behind the private citizens. I know the in US, and quite a few anglo-countries this is not so much the case anymore.

Some people seem to want to be serfs.

Re:To Clarify

[wronskyMan]

Our elected officials work for the public and most people on slashdot have a fit whenever one of them uses a non-official account to conduct official business, since communications about taxpayer business, written on taxpayer time are considered to be available to the taxpayer through FOIA, etc.

Nokia further owns the email systems, so it's not like them monitoring texts from an employees personal cellphone. I have had a work cellphone; it was always known that the employer got the bill at the end of the month and could see the records of calls made. If we wanted to make a call and hide it from the employer, we *gasp* used our own methods of communication.

Re:To Clarify

[multiplexo]

And exactly why the fuck are we OK with that in the US? I mean really, Americans are such spineless little cunts about that sort of thing. We talk a great game about how we're the land of the free and home of the brave but then get down on our knees and suck cock for big corporations at the drop of a hat.

Re:To Clarify

[celtic_hackr]

Right, so now we can force people to resort to the traditional way of selling the secrets of the place a person works. Back to taking pictures, or making drawings and transferring them by mail/hand/drop stop. Of course nowadays, they could just download it to a memory stick or burn to a cd/dvd. If, Nokia is that worried about their IP that they need to spy on their employees, then they'd better just build themselves a prison and keep all their employees in there with no access to the outside world. Not that I totally disagree with Nokia wanting to have as many tools to find spies in their midst. They should however obey the laws of the country they are in. In fact, I would say what they have done is criminal for anyone except the rich and powerful. After all extortion is a felony in this country, and I suspect it is everywhere. That is what they're doing right?

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, alter the contract laws then if they're the problem. Modifying laws that affect everyone in the country, not just Nokia employees, is not the answer.

Re:To Clarify

[Draek]

Currently, in Finland, it is illegal to monitor emails of employees who are using company equipment and the company network. This is, of course, completely absurd.

Please provide a logical reason for the "of course". Because to me its just like installing a security camera on your bathroom: yes, it's yours, but that doesn't mean the other person shouldn't have any privacy. Plus, the fact that you wanna know speaks volumes about you, none of it flattering.

All Nokia wants is the ability to see the the following information: Sender, Receiver, Size and Type of Attachments, and Date/Time. They don't even want to read the contents.

Can the proposed law in any way, shape or form allow them to even take a look at the actual contents of the emails? because badly-written laws *will* get abused, the US' DMCA the best example of that.

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

Yes and yes.

Re:To Clarify

[oreaq]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources?

yep. i work for a large (German) company with over 100.000 employees. My employer isn't allowed to monitor my net usage. If you treat your employer like your enemies your employer will become your enemies.

Re:To Clarify

[famebait]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources?

Yes, and most do (or at least, derive no real value from doing those things).

Re:To Clarify

[Yvanhoe]

Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? Does this really seem right to you?

Well, yes. It can be done, it is being done. If an employee can steal IPs from the company via email, he can do so more effectively through USB keys.

And I have a scoop for the Finnish government : Nokia won't leave your country over such a minor issue. It would cost them far too much.

Re:To Clarify

[hany]

Keeping the cost of network infrastructure at treasonable level?

Re:To Clarify

[hany]

I meant "reasonable" ... but even "treasonable" might be. :)

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely absurd?

So you'd be okay with cameras in the bathroom then, if you're using the toilet, lights, and heat at work?

Re:To Clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

...Does anyone here really think you could run a large company without being able to monitor emails sent by company representatives, using company resources? ...

Yes I do.

Corruption test

[Judge_Fire]

Finland has a long track record for being regarded as the least corrupt country in the world, or definitely in the top three, depending on the three.

This story has been seen as provocative, given this lily white context, so it's actually quite interesting to see where this goes, especially as we're simultaneously observing the story unfold around the 2% vote fail issue.

Re:Corruption test

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that this is not the case right now. Last year there was a big scandal, when Finland combat wehicle manufacturer Patria (tried to) bribe Slovenian prime minister.

Re:Corruption test

[Lost Engineer]

It doesn't matter if you come from a less corrupt country. If you want to operate in a more corrupt one you're going to have to bribe someone.

Re:Corruption test

[Anonymous Coward]

Iceland is up there too with only marginally lower score than Finland. You know that country that recently went bankrupt because of corruption.

These kind of measurements are worthless.

Re:Corruption test

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how was it that Iceland went under because of corruption? Bad, maybe even insane policies, sure, but corruption - no way.

Re:Corruption test

[an unsound mind]

This is NOT a big corruption issue.

Frankly, the whole issue wouldn't even happen in a more corrupt country - they wouldn't have the (outrageous to most countries) privacy laws in the first place.

Re:Corruption test

[Anonymous Coward]

A little back story to this news: Finland has one of the strictest privacy laws in the world, this is just moving a bit closer to the norm... The shoddy preparing of this law can easily be explained by incompetence, I'm not ready to call this corruption.

Re:Corruption test

[Anonymous Coward]

incompetency != corruption

In the name of anthopomorphism

[waveclaw]

I'm surprised that the employment contracts for those employees did not stipulate that all employee email passing through their systems was subject to search. Compared with the USA under King George and Prince Chaney, any country with "laws blocking companies from monitoring employee emails" sounds like a privacy paradise.

It seems that Nokia's lobbyists can push an unconstitutional law through the legislature at will.

I know we're all for humanizing these collective fictions called corporations. Even going so far as to equate them to real people in law.

Now, let's be realistic: someone inside Nokia decided that they personally wanted this law. I guess it's nice to have none of the responsibility for your actions yet the power to have them executed. Some single manager held a meeting and told people to do this, even though it is the whole company that will be judged based on this.

While the employees are paid to be tools of the company, it is a single, living an breathing idiot somewhere inside Nokia that wants to play voyeur. Who? Unless it's a VP or CO level person, we may never know. All we know is that someone might be trying to stop the flow of confidential information out of the company.

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[QuasiEvil]

...USA under Emperor George and Darth Chaney...

FTFY - it is /., after all.

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[GTarrant]

I'm surprised that the employment contracts for those employees did not stipulate that all employee email passing through their systems was subject to search.

Perhaps, in Finland, one cannot sign away this particular right.

After all, many employment contracts in the US specify that one's job is "at-will" and one can be fired at any time for any reason (mine does). However, signing such a contract still leaves you with rights that the government considers as inviolate, such as the right not to be fired due to your race. No amount of signing, even if the contract specifically states "You sign away this specific right" can take some enumerated rights from you.

Perhaps in Finland, the right not to be spied upon by one's employer is such a right. I don't know that, but if Nokia has multiple times been chastised for doing this, one might assume that could be the case.

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that the employment contracts for those employees did not stipulate that all employee email passing through their systems was subject to search.

Even if it did it would most likely still be a meaningless stipulation as privacy of communication is a constitutional right in Finland and any clause in a contract that tries to limit your constitutional rights is considered invalid even if the rest of the contract might still be valid.

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[Anonymous Coward]

and it will be the same under the Saviour Obama.
It's just the way things are in the USA and I see no signs of it changing for the better in my life time (or likely anyone's lifetime.)

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[puhuri]

Perhaps, in Finland, one cannot sign away this particular right.

You are right: it is not possible to give "you can read all my email" right to employer. If, for example, you are leave (or sick) and your manager thinks that there is a critical information in your mailbox, he cannot just ask system admin to open your mailbox and get that message.

To read the message, the employer must first try to contact you to open the message. If that fails, then there is certain procedure how a needed message is first searched (basicly email subject, sender and date are only allowed). Then message is opened and all of this (including opened message) is recorded and handed to you when you came back.

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in Finland the contract law governing employment is quite strict in some cases. There is even provisions that if contract paper violates law all the terms not beneficial to employee are invalid. (Although in courts here it's valid to use common sense so even if there is some stupid law court can sometimes just ignore it.)

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[Anonymous Coward]

(Although in courts here it's valid to use common sense so even if there is some stupid law court can sometimes just ignore it.)

No, courts cannot ignore law here in Finland. Really. You are misinformed.

Surprisingly, in the US, courts can ignore law, at least theoretically (and it has happened), at least in criminal cases. It happens through the much ridiculed jury system -- a jury has the unquestioned power to acquit (or indeed not indict in the first place) any person, no matter how bad the facts look like or what the law says. And that's actually one important point of the jury system; however judges don't like it and have been able to put it like "you the jury really have no _right_ to do that; you do have the power (although that's usually not mentioned) and can't be punished for using it, but it's not your right", and using the jury as a mere fact-finder has made it quite pointless nowadays.

This is called jury nullification and it has happened a few times in history, in cases like the prohibition (refusing to convict people for violating the alcohol prohibition, which was seen as government's oppression of the people), or in helping slaves to escape (which was still a crime even if you did it in a state that had abolished slavery, helping slaves in some other state escape).

But there's no such thing in Finland, we don't have juries, and the courts cannot ignore the law. Even worse, we basically have no constitutional protection since a law is automatically considered not contradictory to constitution if the parliament's constitutionary committee has considered its constitutionality when making the law. That's one of the reasons why this current case is so rotten -- it got through the constitutionary committee even if it's quite obviously in violation of the constitution. (I bet our American friends wish they had constitutional protection for privacy too. Well, they don't have that, we don't really have a constitution that matters in courts after all. Although there is some trying to get that changed, I'm not optimistic.)

Re:In the name of anthopomorphism

[chefren]

This is actually wrong, you can sign a written contract (with 2 witnesses!) that allows certain people (as specified by the contract) the right to access your personal mail. In our company its common that a person leaving the company signs a contract that allows their successor access to their e-mail for up to 6 months after they have left after which the mail account must be deleted by law anyway. The contract assumes that the person leaving has cleaned out everything they do not want to remain in the system (personal mails) and of course they don't have to sign the contract at all. In this case we at the IT dept. will simply shrug and tell people that we are sorry but we cannot grant access without a written contract that allows us to do so. Reading someones mail without such a contract is a criminal offense that results in fines or imprisonment. Mail sent to addresses that are not personal (like webmaster@company.com) are not protected by this law.

Who cares?

[ultrabot]

Wouldn't it be insanely careless to leak information by sending suspicious emails from your corporate account anyway?

Also, does anyone who cares about privacy in any degree use corporate email for anything personal? I think it's reasonable to expect that your nokia.com account should only be used for your official nokia business. Also, corporate emails are typically much less convenient than e.g. gmail anyway, and with limited quotas. Do you really want to use them when you don't have to?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's insanely careless to even use your home account.

As far as e-mails go or surfing anonymously, all you need to do is find unsecured wireless - and that is everywhere.

I was amazed to see a few more have now popped up just in my own neighborhood. If I wanted to piggyback on someone, I wouldn't even have to leave my house. With just a bit of driving, proximity wouldn't even be a clue.

Not that I am advocating that by any means. I recommend that anyone I know lock their wireless up with the strongest protocol available. But doing anything illegal from work, or even home is really stupid.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law itself, doesn't just give Nokia a right to do so. It gives authority to EVERYONE giving that service. Basically this means even libraries and schools can go behind this law and snoop their network users.

Re:Who cares?

[fastest fascist]

Well, a commenter on a Finnish news site replied to similar criticisms by claiming that some of Nokia's design departments are locked out of the internet, and also their computers encrypt anything put on USB drives etc. so that the files can not be viewed on third-party computers. According to the commenter, this effectively makes company e-mail the only way of sending out digital copies of design documents.

Now, it seems unlikely that, even if this is all true, the security policies of these departments would be tight enough to keep a determined spy from getting information out, but I guess in theory this could explain how the law would be of use in preventing industrial espionage.

Re:Who cares?

[Lost Engineer]

Actually I see the opposite trend. Maybe just in CA. Most people are locking down their networks. I, in fact, did so after the RIAA starting suing people based on IP addresses. I'd like to provide free, limited (bandwidth-wise) internet to the whole neighborhood, and I'm certainly capable of securing my LAN while doing so, but the law is just not in place to protect my doing so.

So I think the default for "please-set-up-my-internets" guy is going to be to enable encryption until society catches up.

Re:Who cares?

[SydShamino]

According to the commenter, this effectively makes company e-mail the only way of sending out digital copies of design documents.

I dunno, seems to me a handy Nokia-brand cellular phone with built-in camera could, given enough time, snap adequate pictures of a computer monitor displaying successive chunks of zoomed-in design documents.

Re:Who cares?

[an unsound mind]

Which is the REAL problem instead of this "Nokia is strongarming the government omgwtf what proof?" FUD.

Re:Who cares?

[Fulkkari]

Right. But even if you'd be ok with your corporate mail being monitored this law applied to any "community subscriber". This includes the high-speed Internet connection you are sharing with your neighbours. Would you like to give your neighbours legal right to capture all your protocol headers starting with IP? This is more than the police has authorization to do in normal circumstances. This law will do absolutely nothing to stop IP theft, just cause paranoia between people.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[NeverVotedBush]

Who knows? By the time you get there, they might have joined the rest of the world and no longer care about their citizen's privacy.

It's looking that way.

But who am I, as an American, still subject to George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales' so-called Patriot Act with all the warrantless wiretaps, no notice search warrants, gag orders, etc, to criticize any other country in any way for not caring about citizen privacy?

What is my phone doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of the bugfest Nokia N95 phones at the moment, but will defintely be looking at supporting one of the smaller/more independent phone manufacturers at my next upgrade.

The only way companies like this learn, is through bad press, and customers leaving them.

Also consider this - a company so willing to move towards such control freakery, and monitoring of it's staff, even to force laws to be bent and framed to it's will, would surely have no objections to inserting all kinds of remote access (*cough* backdoor *cough*) points into their phones on demand, or perhaps as a sales point, to those in power, who want to use them.

Really sad..

[rzei]

For years I've felt bad for, well for example Americans for corporations having way too much power over there. Now even at my very own home country, the employer of my many friends of mine pulls shit like this, it's unbelievable.

For what? To spy their employees? What the fuck?!

Does Nokia even have the slightest competitive edge on innovation at any frontier? No it does not. In the past few years they've only managed to start copying others.. So I guess they are afraid their employees sending emails telling everyone that they are now starting to copy Apple or RIM or whoever employs innovative people. That's like sending answers to simple math questions like 1+1=2.

The law itself, so called "Lex Nokia" is bad, it's really bad. Any organization can, after it's passed start surveillance on their employees after filing some stupid form. Police won't have any control over these operations. You aren't even required to fill the god damn form, you can do it later on and pay a small fine!

Can you spell out obscene in some other way? This is ridiculous. I do not want to live here anymore if Nokia gets it's way. To hell with them, Finland would be a much better place without them. Poor, maybe a bit shaken but it surely isn't worth of losing every last sense of law in this country.

Just if someone would make sure to collect them every cent of development grants they've received in the past years before they go.

Re:Really sad..

[juustomuna]

This is exactly how I feel. Nokia is nowadays just a bunch of managers and lawyers -- and they are doing the only thing they can do: play golf, lobby the goverment and tune their powerpoint presentations. Nobody really does anything at Nokia. Everyone in Finland used to like Nokia, but with shit like this (and the phones they are making), the tide seems to be changing.

Re:Really sad..

[CodeBuster]

I do not want to live here anymore if Nokia gets it's way

Where could you go where corporations do not run the show?

Re:Really sad..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that Nokia sells more phones per week than Apple has sold in its ENTIRE EXISTENCE, right?

Nokia was also involved in the development of most major mobile phone technologies (everything from GSM onward).

Re:Really sad..

[iJusten]

Americans for corporations having way too much power over there.

Nokia started it's existence as a water-operated wood-pulp mill. It's name originates from the town located near the river. It is in no way "American" :)

But you are right; big companies tend to do bad things, even when they have declaration of human rights as part of their charter (as Nokia does).

Oh. Good. I enjoy challenges!

[Gazzonyx]

[...] So, universities and schools can monitor what students do on the Internet. Over any protocol, not just e-mail.

That's fine by me, all they have to do is break my 8192 bit rsa key (on USB drive, along with a portable-apps PuTTY, firefox, thunderbird, and other 'goodies'), or figure out a way to keep me from tunneling other protocols over SSH. They could lock down USB ports, I guess. Although I'll be a bit ticked when I have to go back to carrying live CDs on disk. I guess they could also confiscate the half dozen USB drives that I usually carry... and hope that none of them are hacksaws when them plug them in to a 'doze box as admin. That'd push me back to borrowing a laptop from the library and netstumbling over the campus.

The bottom line is, they aren't going to catch anyone who has a clue, so they'll end up wasting a lot of time and money to monitor all the wrong people. If they're not careful, though, they might accidentally become a challenge to the kind of people who enjoy technical puzzles/systems (read: target for bored and/or curious geeks). For most networks, that would be akin to showing up to a gun fight with a rubber chicken... at best.

Re:Oh no

[Shakrai]

Cue endless stories about how the Finns beat the Soviets in the Winter war, even though they didn't actually win but rather lost 10% of their territory and a fifth of their industrial base.

Oh go fuck yourself. They did better than any other country (including Germany, I might add) did against the Soviet Union. Think you could do any better when fighting someone who has sixty times your landmass and fifty times your population?

The RIAA...

[boredhacker]

...is sending corporate security "goons" to old ladies houses to insure that their Mafia-esque agenda is pushed through legislation and THIS is what makes headlines???? Nokia wants to monitor information going in and out of it's very own system!??!?! BFD!

To quote one of my favorite movies:

It's bush league psych-out stuff! Laughable, man!

Dear Nokia. So long and thanks for all the fish

[Anonymous Coward]

I have only bought Nokia mobile phones so far. I don't have much to complain about regarding your phones, but now I'm afraid that I will have to buy a phone from another company.

blacklist=Nokia++

[hackus]

Lemma see now...

1) I pulled out all of my CISCO gear when I first started working at a local logistics supplier, that was chuck FULL of CISCO. When my boss asked me WHAT WAS I DOING? I simply said, "Well, we have all of these old computers and they can act as gateways, vpn routers, and VoIP servers for our desktops. Why upgrade to equipment we cannot reuse in the budget for other things, or easily fix just by loading BSD or Linux on it?"

But it was all a lie of course...OR

Was it?

I replaced all of the CISCO gear because CISCO, was providing the Chinese government the means to kill and torture anyone they do not like online.

I kept that part to myself as my Boss loves CISCO. He likes to keep his job more though, so he left me do it.

I still buy from Linksys because I need WRT54GL's, which I load with that awesome DD-WRT firmware.

If anyone can recommend a better device I can buy from a company that doesn't help foreign governments hunt down citizens on the internet, that would be great. WRT54GL though is a pretty nice piece of hardware.

CISCO, you suck.

2) Novell. Oh, well...what can I say? Back in the day when I was a Novell administrator, I thought Netware 5 was going to be better and provide a protected mode OS you can run apps on. Nope, I was betrayed. I thought Novell was going to get a nice protected memory architecture and they promised it would, so it would run better, with less ABENDS at 4AM in the morning. They never did deliver any of those promises. Sigh.

I get cranky thinking about the early morning trips into the office, sorry.

But the whole buying of SuSe, getting money above and below the table from a unknown source, eventually, to find out it was Microsoft was the straw that broke the GNU Oxen's back.

So, I ripped out all of my Novell servers, pulled out all of my SuSe servers, and well, my boss was a problem. He liked the SuSe desktop. A couple of days later his workstation wouldn't boot. (I wonder how that happened?)

So, installed Fedora, and he loved it. I said "You know, Fedora is much more stable. We should install Fedora on all of our desktops and servers where we can and get rid of SuSe so you do not crash again." :-)

Called SuSe to tell them, "Tell Bill I said Hi the next time you give him a in the back room. Oh, and one more thing, YAST SUCKS."

Then there is the whole Icaza thing...with the .Net crap SuSe loads on the boxes. .Net is crap in the Microsoft world, so NOW Miguel gets the brilliant idea to make CRAP PORTABLE, and open up a distro such as SuSe to patent litigation!

Yeah, Novell...

YOU SUCK...

IT.

3) Now...SIGH. Nokia. Is it not bad enough, we have politicians who are stupid and remove more and more of our rights on a daily basis? No, you say? You say you want to speed that process up and sovereign governments where you do business are annoying?

That is really too, bad, Nokia.

Tomorrow, it just so happens, I will be calling our cellular carrier and complaining about the reception of these Nokia phones we currently use. (Not really, they work fine. It just begins the process I need to get rid of them out of the organization at all 20 locations in Wisconsin.)

But, make no doubt, after I sabotage, and kill these phones, we will be buying different ones at the end of our contract this May.

Does it always have to end this way?

Nokia. You SUCK.

-Hack

Re:blacklist=Nokia++

[an unsound mind]

FUD, lies and deceit.

The real problem is in the side-effects, not what Nokia is doing.

Re:blacklist=Nokia++

[shermo]

Modded +1 insane evil genius

Re:blacklist=Nokia++

[Xtravar]

It just begins the process I need to get rid of them out of the organization at all 20 locations in Wisconsin.

If you're ever in Madison, I'd like to buy you a beer and hear all about your crazy shenanigans.

Re:blacklist=Nokia++

[hackus]

I do not drink...a drop actually.

But, I love to watch others drink. So I think we could work something out...

As long as you have at least 8 beers, and I can watch what happens.

On the other hand, I will be a FRESHMAN in Madison, 2009 fall semester.
(42 years olf and going back for 2 degrees)

How I am going to pay for it, I have not decided...

But I do have a plan, that involves paying off 23 people, 14 cities world wide, fake ATM payroll cards and of course, a offshore bank account in Swiss land.

I am pretty sure it will work to, as it has been tried already and well, works!

Don't worry though, I just want $250K for the BS and MS in computer science, so I do not have to work at the same time as go to school...

After all...there are a lot of rich "pricks" in the department that think they are smarter than the average joe...except when the average joe levels the playing field and can study 40 ours a week like they can.

Instead of working 30 hours and trying to cut grades.

(I am evil for a reason...but it is a very very good reason for a good cause.) :-)

-Hack

Word about the newspaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to write a comment on what's wrong and at least very deceptive in this news piece - but I quickly figured out that would have been too much work. Just keep in mind that Helsingin Sanomat has basically monopoly position regarding national "quality" newspapers in Finland. It's just the only one left, and has been enjoying this situation for almost two decades now.

It has its own very strong agenda even if it claims to be unbiased, and often I find it hard to believe the journalists have any journalistic dignity left or even believe in being actual journalists. They have several topics they twist heavily only because they have chosen such a line; anti-Nokia line is one of those. Other is to openly attack against non-consensus citizen opinions, especially in the great evil that challenges their own monopoly - the Internet. HS very avidly supports effective (if not legally obvious) reductions of freedom of speech and opinion anonymity. "For better quality public debate", of course.

They are one of the Finnish strongholds of journalists that have received traditionally ultraleftist education and see that their purpose is to produce ideologically accepted news instead of bringing out the facts to the people. It wouldn't be such a problem if the country actually had another national newspaper, especially one with differing opinions to return them in line - but no, there isn't one.

No, I don't think Nokia is a pure saint - but I think HS may even want this legislative change while trying to put the blame to Nokia, and not the leftist government bureaucrats that get pages and pages of newspaper praising from their same-minded "journalists."

Re:Word about the newspaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

You conveniently left out the fact that a number of law professors were asked for their expert opinion, and they unanimously said that the bill was unconstitutional. This expert opinion was then ignored by the politicians preparing the law.

This is not entirely unlike what happened with the copyright law (the so-called Lex Karpela) a few years back.

More than the leftist government bureaucrats, I'm worried about the right-wing politicians that are doing whatever their big-business masters want with total disregard to both public and expert opinion, the constitution and the principles of a democratic state.

  -A Finnish AC

Re:Word about the newspaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

Balance is everything - and it's the thing that's lacking in Finnish widespread journalism.

Your stance is quite understandable, but it doesn't make HS's intents any less vile.

I'm not saying the law would make much sense, I'm rather thinking they're intentionally barking the wrong tree. If it would actually be not in powerful bureaucrats' interests, it wouldn't have got so far even over this timespan. And I must say, regardless of election results, leftists with monopolistic preferences about acceptable opinions hold considerable amount of those bureaucratic positions.

Of course there might be such right-wing bureaucrats too... but if they're actually successful, they rather move to real business than try to enforce their ideology on the citizens. After all, professionally leftist people don't usually find much business opportunities less abusive than that one comparable to a mosquito.

Re:Word about the newspaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

Balance is everything - and it's the thing that's lacking in Finnish widespread journalism.

I agree. However, in my opinion the problem is that the mainstream media is bent too far to the right :)

YLE is the worst offender in this regard, but then again, it's the national broadcaster as opposed to a newspaper outfit.

I have to admit I don't read newspapers all that often. I've read the (very) occasional Kaleva, Keskisuomalainen and Aamulehti as well as HS. This is the only high-profile story I'm aware of, that in a topic which directly affects the rights of an individual citizen, prefers the viewpoint of the individual over that of big business. (If you or someone else have links to other such articles in HS or other Finnish mainstream media, I'd be delighted.)

The article brings up the problems also brought up in EFFI's analysis, so I'd consider it pretty accurate - far from the generic attempt to divert people's attention toward only the "relax - what's wrong with the employer looking at their employees' emails?" aspect. (Remember what happened when the new copyright law was in preparation - as you may recall, the debate in mainstream media was diverted from the real problems in the law toward the single aspect on church music. This pulled the rug from under any mainstream discussion as to the widespread effects of the proposed law, and the law passed without a mainstream PR disaster.)

I'd applaud if we could see this kind of journalism more often. Offering an opposing viewpoint is not the ideal solution for achieving balance, but it's not evil either.

As for HS itself - personally I have no opinion on them. I tend to distrust mainstream media instinctively, so seeing this particular article in a mainstream news source was a pleasant surprise.

Due to this, I initially took your post as an attack toward the messenger just because they were - for once - saying something inconvenient for big business. I apologize for that.

There are proponents of the snooping bill online and they're using all the FUD tactics they can. Check the HS and DigiToday discussions for examples.

Looking at things neutrally, yes, the article could be seen as fitting in with an existing anti-Nokia agenda. On the other hand, the article is reasonably accurate and complete, and no one is unbiased no matter what they themselves state.

Maybe the reasonable way to take this article is like Linux on the PS3 - from the practical point of view. The motives may not be what we'd wish them to be, but at least HS did the right thing on this particular occasion.

  -A Finnish AC (the GP)

Re:Oh. Good. I enjoy challenges!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So, you are inserting a USB mass storage device, with your RSA key on it, into untrusted computers and you consider this secure?

D'oh!

[Gazzonyx]

Good point.

I was shooting from the hip to make a point and wound up at Epic Fail.

You've got me thinking now, what would be the most secure way to handle a private key on a campus computer (I live off campus, so I use one of them about once a semester)? I guess boot a live cd first, then use the key... or keep two keys and use the first one (a throw away) to SSH to a known secure host where you have your normal key? That way, at least you've gotten your good key encrypted and you can always revoke the throw away if it becomes compromised, I guess.

Re:D'oh!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

On a system that isn't laced with hardware keyloggers(or worse, you don't even want to think about dealing with a system where your OS is running under an always-on malicious hypervisor) a liveCD should solve most of your problems. That'll get rid of software keyloggers and any software agents grabbing files off your USB keys. For the storage of keys specifically, you really want a hardware security token, with onboard key storage and processing, so your key never actually leaves the device(smartcards and various security fobs fit the bill here).

Ultimately, though, being entirely secure on somebody else's OS and hardware is pretty much an identical problem to DRM, which is to say, not ultimately solvable. It should be quite easy to be more secure than a common adversary would bother with(I work in school IT, as long as you aren't trying to crack our stuff, or disrupting others with pron and warez, we don't actually care that much. Running a mini surveillance state would take time and money that we just don't have); but being actually secure is pretty near impossible. It'd be far easier just to use your own machine than to be fully confident about working on an untrusted one.

Im threatening to pull out of Nokia, if it passes

[unity100]

and i will try to make my close circle give up nokia too. how about that ?

This is sensationalist news

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Finland and I work for Nokia. This is purely a sensationalist article. Please read RTFA before frothing in the mouth about "fuck Nokia." There's this news from Helsingin Sanomat (please use Google translate if you want to read that) The prime minister himself _explicitly_ stated that he has not heard of this threats. What is wrong with you gullible fanatics? In the past few weeks we have LGPLd Qt and you were very happy with that. Now you hear this thing which has no apparent basis and you start whining.

Re:This is sensationalist news

[an unsound mind]

I live in Finland and don't work for Nokia, and am very sensitive about my privacy.

And this is pure FUD. It's just a rumor, and everyone related says there's been no threats when questioned.

And to make it worse, the law's only really bad side-effect isn't even mentioned - that it allows EVERY community internet provider to snoop on communications.

Which could easily be fixed by forcing people to sign contracts explicitly acknowledging that it's happening.

Re:This is sensationalist news

[Anonymous Coward]

> it allows EVERY community internet provider to snoop on communications.

Yeah, after sending a notice the privacy ombudsman (tietosuojavaltuutettu) in advance of starting the "snooping" (a.k.a. grepping the logs*).

People who haven't read the actual law seem to think this law gives the right to fire ethereal at will.

* you _are_ aware that grepping mail logs can be considered illegal in finland at the moment?

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[puhuri]

Well, the Finland has nowadays one of most stricts privacy laws. What Nokia wants to do, is the thing US companies do routinely every day claiming that they has to do it to protect shareholder value.

The law at present proposed form is nowhere close to laws (if one exist) in many "civilized" countries, not to talk about totalitarian countries. Like one not-so-democratic east of Finland, and one we-listen-your-communication west of Finland.

It is actually quite funny, that the existing law is known as "Lex Sonera" (Sonera was a former state-own telco now part of TeliaSonera). The former CEO of Sonera wanted to find out which employees leaked information to press by getting call records of many people (board members, other employees and journalists). This obviously backfired and we got one of most strict implementations of EU privacy laws.

Now Nokia with other companies wants to get some of those rights back (earlier the law was unclear for computer communications, but the right of privacy existed there) they unofficially had before that. Of course, we as citizens and employees do not want to give that away. Even if I need to do extra tricks when I do my work to keep user data private.

I personally like very much that Finnish law tries to protect employees: often the situation in working life is quite uneven and the employer has upper hand in many cases. Laws put some limits on that, even if cannot protect in all cases.

The problem

[Brandybuck]

Huge multinational corporations are not the problem, they are the symptom! The core problem is government. NOT the current Finnish government, per se, but the system of government itself. It is a system that tries to organize society through centralized planning and direction. Our modern societies are far too complex to effectively manage in this way, and it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. One such consequence is big business. Free markets do not create huge corporate behemoths, because markets loath inefficiencies. These busineses have become so large that they must create internal autonomous divisions, or they would cease to operate. So why do some businesses become so large? Because modern tax and regulatory structures favor size.

In a nutshell, when only companies large enough to have legions of lawyers are able to navigate the bureaucratic swamps, only companies large enough to have legions of lawyers will thrive. It may seem sensible to impose regulations on these monsters, but those same regulations affect SMALL businesses as well! They erect barriers to entries, creating monopolies. It can be more profitable for big businesses to lobby government than to engage in productive market activities. In fact, many regulations are lobbied for by the business community itself!

I am not arguing to get rid of all regulations. But we do need to be cognizant of the fact that every regulation has negative consequences. Pretending that we can wave a legislative wand and fix all of our problems is naive.

There is no single silver bullet to this problem. Nokia has grown too big for its britches. But we can start to repair the damage by loosening the restrictions we place on small businesses. Let's change directions and start growing government and business smaller.

Re:The problem

[visible.frylock]

Oh come on. Next you'll be telling us that patents favor large, entrenched players to the detriment of small businesses without legal departments. Or that insanely complex tax, reporting, and data retention laws favor large players unfairly. Are you seriously suggesting that the new backbone of western civilization, lawyers, accountants, police, and social workers should have their industries cut down to size because they only exist to satisfy the asinine legal structure that we've created. Come on dude, it's a 21st century, global village, innovation centric economy. Think synergy!

Re:The problem

[freedom_india]

The problem is Democracy as it exists today.
It is flawed.
The reason we used to elect representatives to represent citizens is because none of the citizens had the ability to jointly partitipate directly in a democracy: communication, travel (stagecoaches), nor the time (church for a whole day???).
However, today we could directly vote, particppate and even travel to a large House.
Why do we need someone else to "represent" our interests?
Why can't we have a direct democracy like Swiss?
All this Nokia like crap would go away.
Always remove the middle-men.
Whether in Church, or in Congress, always eliminate the middle-men.
Democracy is outdated.
Upgrade it to modern version.
Am sure our politicians would not accept this...

Re:The problem

[famebait]

Oh, bollocks.

In any market there will be some actors who are stronger than others. The strongest has no interest in the market remaining free, and occasionally attempts to bind it. This needs to be prevented. There is no shortage of examples of this happening, and even succeeding.

"The invisible hand" is a metapor for effects that occur in well-functioning free markets, it's not the actual disembodied hand of Santa Claus operating as a force of nature.

Forces that only exist in a free market cannot *create* a free market. That needs to be nurtured and guarded as an act of will. It is not a stable base state, never has been, and was not intended as one by the poeple who created the models.

Capitalism is is an (probably the most) efficient way of applying one's efforts to govern, but it still requires effort to not degrade into good old fashioned feudalism, complete with unaccountability, oppression, wars and assasinations.

Not what, just who

[Anonymous Coward]

The requests of the law include being able to see who and when you have emailed from your company account. They do not get to see the contents of the message. When I use my employer's email I am doing my employers business. Should I wish to do personal business at work, I should at least use my own email account.

Maybe this would be better if it were limited to communications with representatives outside the company if internal union communications are at stake.

My health care is paid by work but I am still not going to use my work email to handle any related questions.

No-competes are enforceable

[Anonymous Coward]

I still prefer California's right-to-work stance. No-competes are standard items in Finnish employment contracts (up to 6 months).

Re:No-competes are enforceable

[an unsound mind]

Finland has unemployment benefits to counter that though.

Not a contribution to the Free Software community

[mjrauhal]

Besides your astonishing lack of perspective, putting Qt under the LGPL was not a contribution to the free software community at all, hence not a consideration. It was already free software.

They just want proprietary companies to develop for their toolkit, presumably in great part because of their plans to leverage it on the Symbian platform as well.

Don't get me wrong, the LGPLing is all fine and okay, it's just not very consequential as far as liberty goes, and that is the axis which we're talking about with this law.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Finnish citizen, 28 years old. I understand your post was probably a joke but Finland used to be a pretty respectable country but now it's all going to hell on the fast lane. Poor people are getting poorer at ever quickening pace while the rich are getting richer. People are too tired to vote and we're been lead by "democratically elected" oppressionists. The little people are walked over by the corporations. All companies do what Nokia did, they just don't get sued for it. Finland voted YES with no comments on OOXML too. These are bad times.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[Arancaytar]

> there is still a country on earth that has SOME kind of privacy

As TFS says, not much longer. :P

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Finnish too and 27.

As much as I oppose this law, I think you are placing too much blame on Finland. It's not that it's not going to hell; it's that the entire world is, and some places like the UK are much closer to hell.

This economic crisis has not really reached Finland yet. If it had, you might realize the world is about to become a hell anyway.

I've followed economics for a fair number of years now (well, given my age anyway), and the mantra always is that all is well and the worst is now over. Well, except now, and that really scares the hell out of me.

What we have is mainstream economists, who usually preach that mantra (because it works to some extent), saying this is the worst recession since 1930. I think it might even turn out to be worse.

And you have to remember that the 1930 recession eventually led to a world war. I don't know who the belligerents would be or over what issues, but neither could anybody predict Hitler in 1930.

I don't know if this will go so far, frankly my crystal ball is out of order. However, mark my words: Even our little Finland, the safe place where nothing so bad could ever could happen, is not safe. I'm not saying there will be war. It might turn out to not be that bad. What I'm saying you would be a fool to not take that chance into account and prepare the best you could.

YA that swhat bell canada says too

[Anonymous Coward]

1st get that right to do it then you cna worry about a spy law after its accepted

Re:To Clarify some more

[Anonymous Coward]

Seem like the parent is Finnish as he is parroting what the politicians are saying. Please note that: 1) The law is not just about email monitoring. It's all IP communication. I know that Nokia drives more and more of it's calls inside IP-network. -> calls could be monitored. 2) email is about the only concerete thing politicians know about internet thats why they keep talking about email, though this is all IP. (am I parroting here) 3) For normal mail, how do you check what's inside envelope (business cards, photos, etc) if you don't open the envelope? You can't do it. For emal it's the same: you can't see the attachents etc without looking at the actual message content. Besides the law proposal doesn't mention such limitations you stated. 4) All nokia employees have laptops. one can get lot more of business secrets out of he house by walking out with the laptop than using email. Don't underestimate the bandwith of one laptop carried out the door walking. 5) Nokias reasoning for this is business version of "Oh, think about the children". 6) Anonymous, because my income is from nokia

Finland's absurd laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland has vague laws that ban organizations from monitoring their own equipment (basically, even a spam filter might be interpreted as illegal). Economic experts, companies (and even Finland's fusty labor unions) have made a strong case for repealing these laws.

In most countries companies can do almost WHATEVER THEY WANT ON THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT. This proposed law just legalizes several things, like operating an automatic filter. A guy who recently sent Nokia's blueprints to Huawei could repeat the act and, even after this law, Nokia could not legally use electronic records as evidence. I believe, almost anywhere outside Finland, he would be sitting in jail.

These kind of stupid laws - crafted by people who have never worked for private sector - are severe obstacle to job creation in Finland. Technology companies such as Nokia, IBM, Google will monitor their communications whatever the law says. Currently, they are doing that illegally.

If companies are not protected, the alternative is moving classified business out of Finland.

and I really liked my N800

[Anonymous Coward]

How am I going to find an ethical company that makes something as nice.. oh well Nokia never again.

Military Museum in Helsinki

[merikari]

I'd love to get to come to Finland some day and see some of the memorials and museums related to the Winter and Continuation Wars. Where would you suggest I go?

National Defense University has a military museum right in Helsinki Probably a good place to start.

There's a museum of military medicine in Lahti (about 45 minutes from Helsinki by train). I don't know how accessible that is to foreigners though since it's situated at the local barracks in Hennala.

Finland has a lot of museums per capita, so there are plenty of places to go if you really want go around. There are plenty of memorials around Finland. You could also visit some actual battle sites and fortifications along the border. It's not too far from Helsinki...

GPG, PGP

[berend botje]

It's called hard encryption. Use it.

Not Nokia, not the government, not even $DEITY itself could crack that before the thermal death of the universe.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[jez9999]

Finland has a unicameral governmental chamber, elected by open-list proportional representation. It's my idea of a model of a good system. Presumably this means that you don't get big parties with overall majorities, and it's much harder for lobbyists to buy the laws of their choice. This story just shows that you have to be eternally vigilant, though.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[Ash Vince]

Do you actually disagree with this? Get a brain for gods sake.

Of course your employer can monitor your work emails. In most countries they are liable for anything you say in those emails if they are work related. Since there is no way of telling if it is not work related they have to monitor everything, especially when you consider how wide the definition of work related could be.

Also, if it is not work related, then why the hell are you posting it at work using their equipment during the hours they are paying you for. If you want to send a private personal email, use your home PC in your own time.

And my final thought is regard to Virus checking. Could scanning you mail for viruses be considered a form of monitoring? Surely scanning your outgoing emails at the server for viruses then logging whoever sends a virus so the IT staff can go and clean their PC's could be considered an invasion of privacy? The alternative though is that the company could be sued for infecting another companies IT systems.

Re:you mean there are places that DO respect priva

[jacquems]

Finland generally does have strong privacy laws, and even this law gives employers very limited rights compared to, for example, employers in the USA. The law would allow employers to log who users are sending mail to and who they are receiving it from in cases where they suspect an employee is leaking company-proprietary information. Afaik, the actual contents of the message are off limits. There has been plenty of public controversy over this, so I am still hopeful that the Finnish people value their privacy and are willing to stand up for it.

Re:Oh no

[geminidomino]

Think you could do any better when fighting someone who has sixty times your landmass and fifty times your population?

Strictly speaking, the land mass of the USSR (or whatever it was called at the time...) is irrelevant, since the Finns weren't doing the invading. Same for overall population numbers.

Still, the balls required when outnumbered 4:1 and coming out of it in one piece is respectable, abso-freakin-lutely

Re:Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

... still, they lost 10% of the territory and 1/5 of their industrial base.
So, what would be considered a "defeat"? Only "getting annexed by the USSR"???
BTW, the Finnish Gov't accepted all the clauses of the Moscow Peace Treaty because their Nazi allies told them "yeah, akcept whateverr the Sovietz ask, becauze ve arr going to conquerr them togetherr soon!!!"
Then after, not only they lost *again* to the Soviets, they had to expel their allies out of the country...

As for the Lex Nokia, Hitler would be proud of it.

Nokia will never leave Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia will never leave Finland, they'll just take over with a coup.

Let the bastards go...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Nokia is going to totally screw up peoples rights let them go. Are we going to now start allowing corporations to hold governments and those governed hostage?

Re:Not a contribution to the Free Software communi

[CortoMaltese]

They just want proprietary companies to develop for their toolkit, presumably in great part because of their plans to leverage it on the Symbian platform as well.

Nokia is open sourcing Symbian as well.

A final clarification/reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops. The English version of the article linked from the Slashdot summary isn't all that exemplary, and it also seems to be dated 14th of November 2008.

Just to clarify -- when I wrote my comments, in my mind I was referring to what I read in the Finnish version this Sunday.

The Finnish version reveals the important points that the proposal is unconstitutional, it was turned down by eight different law professors (when their expert opinion was asked), that the politicians decided to proceed anyway, and that the new law would apply to all community subscribers, not just employers.

  -A Finnish AC