[pp.int.general] Swedish NSA to wiretap all phone network, Internet

[Reinier Bakels]

> Now Lex Orwell has passed the swedish parliament. 143 voted yes, 138
> voted no, 1 abstained and 67 were not present for the vote.
>
Would this comply with the European Convention of Human Rights ???????? 
(which is not EU but COE, as you know):
Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his 
home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of 
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in 
a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or 
the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or 
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the 
rights and freedoms of others.

The Swedish government may claim that subsection 2 (the limitation 
subsection, which is in all ECHR provisions) permits Lex Orwel. The crux is 
the word "necessary", which must be construed as a "pressing social need". 
Obviously, such an interpretation of the word "necessary" is appropriate, as 
otherwise the provision would be pretty meaningless.

Would a country with the (excellent) reputation as Sweden dare to violate 
human hights? It is a major scandal!

And on a more practical level: the Strasburg European Court (not the 
Luxemburg one!) can be invoked to test the new Swedish law. This court is - 
of course - aware that todays technology has the potential to create a 
"police paradise", so that a strong statement is needed. Also the statement 
"if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason to fear" should be 
countered. It is plain nonsense. Any system has "false positives", and even 
if it is only 0,01%, with a massive system the absolute number is still 
large: of innocent people who get in trouble because of police mistakes. 
Often for many years! It is hard to prove innocence. "Negativa non sund 
probanda".
Police officers - and legislators - often overlook the fact that the privacy 
infringement starts as soon as people are watched involuntarily, not just 
when their data are abused! This confusion incidentally became very apparent 
during the debate about the DRD in the Dutch parliament.

reinier