Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”
FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.
The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.
On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.
Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”
Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.
Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.
Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.
Showing posts with label 1984. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1984. Show all posts
December 08, 2008
November 28, 2008
The Belief in Free Speech
This post is half in response to Russ MacDonald’s post “That’s Blasphemy” and half in response to the appalling terrorist attacks this week in Mumbai.
While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.
MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.
These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.
The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?
Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.
The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.
It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?
What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?
When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.
Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.
While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.
MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.
These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.
The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?
Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.
The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.
It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?
What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?
When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.
Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)