Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Without Registration, Swedish Law Does Not Protect Wikileaks Sources

Posted by timothy on from the nice-rule-y'got-there dept.

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

24 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. So register by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is the problem? Do they get no retroactive protection?

    1. Re:So register by jopsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:So register by Zironic · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you have to register with the authorities to be considered a Newspaper. Once you're qualified as a newspaper your sources are protected by law making it illegal for the government to investigate them. Obviously the newspaper itself can't be anonymous, but their sources can be.

    3. Re:So register by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please let me clarify.

      If you become a registered publisher in Sweden all your sources anynomity are protected by the law. Your anynomity is however not.
      The interesting part about Swedens laws about protecting sources is that it is illegal for the publisher to tell who his sources is so the source will not need to trust the publisher completely. It is also illegal to ask the publisher about his sources so the police, government or anyone who want to track the source cannot do so through the publisher.
      The law is made to protect the sources, not to protect the middlemen. (There are other laws for that.)

    4. Re:So register by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it's not really that simple. The editor in chief is directly responsible for what is published. A typical situation would be if a news paper commits copyright infringement, then the editor in chief is directly responsible and may be personally fined for that. Registering does not allow you to break the law.

      The legislation does actually give some protection, and that includes things like not having to reveal your sources. Not even the police can force a registered news media to reveal their sources. That's were the protection is targeted, not at the media itself.

    5. Re:So register by Zerth · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you become a registered publisher in Sweden all your sources anynomity are protected by the law. Your anynomity is however not.

      So you have to register as the editor of two newspapers and have each be the other's source. Then you'll disappear in a puff of recursive logic!

      Hrm, I think I should stay away from zebra crossings for awhile.

  2. Why do they need this? by Nichotin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sweden's stringent whistleblower laws are protecting the anonymity of sources that have been feeding the controversial Wikileaks website with sensitive government and corporate information, according to Swedish political sources.

    I thought their process of submitting leaks to Wikileaks provided the source with anonymity anyway, so that even if they were forced to give up their sources they would not have the information at all.

    --
    Dvorak on Doomtech
    1. Re:Why do they need this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the source reveals itself, then nothing in the world can restore anonymity for it, no law, no technology, no nothing. The point of the article is that the press can not be compelled to reveal their sources under Swedish law, so if Wikileaks became a registered publication and knew who their sources are, then they would not have to reveal them. That however is a strawman argument. Wikileaks is operated in a way to facilitate anonymous "leaks". The less they know about the sources, the better the source is protected.

    2. Re:Why do they need this? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. "Grundlag" by dsavi · · Score: 4, Informative

    It literally means Sweden's constitution.

    1. Re:"Grundlag" by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It literally means Sweden's constitution.

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

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

    2. Re:"Grundlag" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      wrong it literally translates to "foundation law" not "ground law"

    3. Re:"Grundlag" by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Och hur vet du det?

      Your apparent belief that "ground" doesn't mean "foundation" or "base" like "grund" does in Swedish, and that you thus have to use "foundation" is... groundless.

      "Foundation law" is stilted. We say "ground rules", and "ground law" follows the same semantics.

      That "ground" also shares the same etymology as "grund" makes it an even better literal translation.

    4. Re:"Grundlag" by Chucky_M · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://xkcd.com/725/

    5. Re:"Grundlag" by Hazelfield · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have to notice though, that there's a difference between the American constitution and the Swedish Grundlag in that the Swedish one doesn't enjoy the protection of a Supreme Court. In the U.S., proposed legislation can get struck down by the Supreme Court if found unconstitutional. In Sweden there is Lagrådet with a similar function, except it doesn't have the ability to overrule the Riksdag (the parliament that writes the laws). It can only issue recommendations to the Riksdag, who may very well decide to ignore them.

      In other words, there's nothing to prevent the parliament from accepting legislature that blatantly conflicts with the constitution.

    6. Re:"Grundlag" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nå må dere tjenerfolk fra øst se å klappe igjen og servere en kald øl.

  5. Original source by akanouras · · Score: 4, Informative

    Original source

    Fucking rumour starters at it once more.

  6. WikiLeaks Denies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20558340142

    I really know little about the matter, but I thought it was worth pointing out that WikiLeaks is refuting this claim.

    CAPTCHA was "spinners".

  7. Link to written english article (no auto-translate by Cothol · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another Swedish newspaper (Sydsvenskan) has a well written article in english here

  8. FUD by dcollins · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    Sounds like FUD.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:FUD by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Sounds like FUD.

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

    2. Re:FUD by Kidbro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps. But the story has been covered by every major Swedish newspaper the last few days.

      Svenska Dagbladet
      Dagens Nyheter
      Göteborgsposten
      Sydsvenskan

      It's the Chancellor of Justice that is being quoted...

      --
      May we live long and die out
  9. Election by foods · · Score: 2, Insightful

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