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."

12 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 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.

    2. 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.)

    3. 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.

  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
  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 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.

  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