Wiretapping Law Sparks Rage In Sweden 344
castrox writes "This Wednesday at 9am the Swedish Parliament is voting on a new wiretapping law which would enable the civil agency (FRA — Defense Radio Agency) to snoop on all traffic crossing the Swedish border. E-mail, fax, telephone, web, SMS, etc. 24/7 without any requirement to obtain a court order. Furthermore, by law, the sitting Government will be able to instruct the wiretapping agency on what to look for. It also nullifies anonymity for press tipsters and whistleblowers. Many agencies within Sweden have weighed in on this, with very hefty criticism, e.g. SÄPO (akin to FBI in the US), the Justice Department, ex-employees of FRA, and more. Nonetheless, the ruling party block is supposedly pressuring its members to vote 'yes' to this new proposed law with threats to unseat any dissidents. After massive activity on blogs by ordinary citizens, and street protests, the story has finally been picked up by major Swedish news sources. The result will likely be huge street protests on Wednesday. People have been completely surprised since this law has not gotten any media uptake until very late in the game."
Where's the outrage in the rest of the free world? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, where has the outrage been in the US? Did not George Orwell warn us? The number of Constitutional rights we've lost under the current administration is truly stunning and if we do not stand up and resist, this sort of thing will continue to spread throughout the world as it has in the UK, Japan, the US and many other European countries.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:3, Interesting)
Finland (Score:2, Interesting)
Bit confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you mean by "soon"? J. Edgar Hoover (FBI) and Nixon are known to have abused domestic spying capabilities for political and dogmatic reasons. John Lennon was spied on, for example, merely for political statements not too different from the lyrics of songs like "Imagine".
They would.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sweden reports to the U.S. and vice versa. This is fact. I don't think they'd cut you off transmitting. In any case they would make it easier for you in order to get you to talk more and contact the rest of your terrorist buddies in the good old Soviet.
Not anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
brave new world was on the curriculum, but not examined nearly as thoroughly as king lear or the scarlet letter.
1984 was not on the curriculum.
any coincidence that my state was a heavy red state, and the republicans had control of congress for 3 years before I even entered high school?
Re:This is not an isolated incident (Score:3, Interesting)
Conspiracy theory: certain agencies are bribing or otherwise pressurizing officials in many countries to introduce this kind of legislation, as it gives them indirect access to wanted information (most countries pass on sensitive information about their own citizens to the CIA etc. more liberally than they could use it in court themselves). If lobbyists can get ridiculous (anti-piracy) laws passed, why shouldn't "law enforcement" agencies? Corruption is the biggest problem in european politics, so it's a rather straightforward thing to do...
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:2, Interesting)
And with a few exceptions, they aren't. Thats why almost everyone railing against the government seems to come off as or is viewed by the public as a kook or some sort of nutbag.
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Internet == Civil Rights Movement (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:5, Interesting)
You're wrong (but it's a common mistake). Go read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin. Even Lenin, who arguably later fucked up and betrayed those ideals himself, did not believe this.
The typical reason why people fail to understand the theoretical basis here is because most people only hear the superficial terminology and never bother to learn what they mean. Marx, and later Lenin, talk about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which will exist under socialism, as the method of transitioning society to communism.
It is also perhaps one of the reasons why it's proven so easy to trick people into supporting these dictatorships, and a key reason why so many revolutions ("socialist" or otherwise) lead to oppression.
Fact of the matter is that even Lenin's works makes it clear that the proletariat of the dictatorship refers to the working classes oppressing the capitalists in the same way that the capitalists in a capitalist country oppresses the working classes, and hence a net increase in freedom (on the basis that the working classes make a larger part of the people. The whole point is to abolish the capitalist class, by taking away their privileges, and making them gradually become members of the working classes.
Since this would effectively turn them into members of the ruling class, and eventually make everyone members of the ruling class, the idea is that it would eventually lead to a classless society where the state then just "withers away" and disappears.
This is further underscored because Marx and Engels refers to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a way of talking of capitalist countries when they wanted to put across the point that without economic power political rights alone does not put people on equal footing.
In fact, to quote Lenin on the dictatorship of the proletariat:
This idea of "producing democracy for the people, for the majority" is much of the basis of the early introduction of the "soviets" after the overthrow of the Czar.
One of the big problems with Leninism, though, is that it also emphasizes a "revolutionary vanguard", and enforces extremely strict party discipline. Historically, most revolutionary movements regardless of their goal, tend to push for far more radical changes than the people as a whole wants - you're more likely to be prepared to take to arms if you have more reasons to be unhappy with the current regime after all.
And when you then have a very disciplined organization that has spent years or decades building themselves up under the idea of always being in danger (because they were), and that people really supports their end goals (because that's how they justify taking to arms against the current regime), you have organizations that are primed to see any resistance as proof of "counter revolution".
It's a recipe for disaster, and sufficient to pervert any ideology, no matter how much people believed or believe in it at the time of the revolution. You can see that in movements across the political spectrum - movements ranging from the far left to the far right have been seduced into using extreme violence because they "know they are right".
It's a tricky one, because sometimes overthrowing the existing regime clearly is the right choice, but the more protracted that fight is, the more chance of developing an organizational culture that has a strong "us vs. them" mentality that will extend past a victory, making it very easy for a new regime to turn to the same methods as the regime that was overthrown.
Our Voices Have Been Muzzled (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just not true. When Baby Bush decided to invade Iraq, tens of thousands protested in the streets of Chicago, shutting down traffic on State Street and Michigan Avenue for a time. Anyone working or living downtown in the Loop (which I did at that time) saw the protest and marvelled at its size--a sea of people stretching a dozen blocks or more filling our streets, peacefully protesting.
They got almost no mention in the news. A brief page 13 story that there had been small protests against the war in Chicago and other cities. Nary a mention on the evening news (local or national).
Why, when we have a free press that loves a big, dramatic story? Well, draw your own conclusions, or form your own conspiracy theories as you will. I don't know why. I only know it happened, as I witnessed it with my own eyes.
People do protest. The problem in America has become that most of these protests seem to go unreported or underreported. Since the whole point of protesting is to make your cause known and get media attention, the protest is thus emasculated and rendered impotent. And of course, the more impotent protests become, the less people are inclined to go out and do it.
Americans do care. In their millions. The problem is, short of armed violence, there seems little chance of making those concerns known to the wider country, much less world. And frankly, most of us don't have the stomach for armed violence, and with the Bush Interregnum coming to an end at last, most of us don't think it's necessary.
So, right or wrong, we've chosen to have our voices silenced rather than start an insurrection, and until you're willing to see your own streets burn because your media muzzles your protests, I don't think you have any place criticising us for choosing to not burn our streets.
Not that things can't get bad enough that that becomes necessary (and without a voice, the odds of that have certainly gone up), but I don't think they're anywhere near that bad yet.
Opposite problem in Italy (Score:2, Interesting)
In the last few years many white collar crimes made the news after wiretaps transcriptions were leaked the the newspapers.
Since people in the government (or friends and families thereof) were involved they're trying to bypass this 'problem' by prohibiting wiretapping altogether.
Needless to say there was no street protest about this, only a few articles on blogs or newspapers.
Seems like it's most of the world that's asleep and will wake to a harsh reality.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:5, Interesting)
I see no problems applying this to "democratic" governments as well. After all, everyone agreed, that pigs are the ones to be trusted with ruling.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, Lenin was off to a good start, a lot of actions he took came right out of the Manifesto. It's just that he wasn't able to take it far enough or provide a mechanism against the anti-socialistic bureaucracy of Stalin before he died. Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed illustrates this nicely. I personally think that most current states in the EU have a much more socialistic nature than the USSR under Stalin.
Ultimately Stalin's actions lead to the perversion of socialism into a state built upon corporatism/fascism. The Soviet Union and communism as a whole was the largest intellectual experiment of the 20th century, and it has shown that mankind simply isn't ready for the ideals in the Manifesto. On a small scale it might be workable, but the world-wide revolution as portrayed by Marx is simply too vulnerable to individual greed for power.
Time for some god-given capitalistic coffee.
Re:Politicians... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the prime minister has been very clear about that every alliance parliament member is supposed to vote along party lines.
It seems that several of these are very uncomfortable about the law, and one member of the Liberal party has stated that she will abstain from voting.
It takes only four members to vote for the opposition, but the pressure is so big that they probably will do as they're told.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:2, Interesting)
You see, the majority of government, for the majority of people, is not going to hell. The majority of people saw the NSA wiretaps as the government doing something, that's why it didn't hurt Bush's reelection. They think the war in Iraq was proper although they might believe it was mismanaged or manipulated to start it. I personally think it was 8 years too late. Clinton should have went in back in 1995 and Al Qeada wouldn't have thought our reaction to 9/11 would be blowing up another asperin factory in the Sudan. But that's another story.
The problem is, the road to hell leads to different places for different people. Your hell might be another persons paradise or you thinking that we are almost there might be interpreted by someone else as sitting a the cross roads figuring out which way to go. In all, it (hell, or the idea of it) is an opinion that someone holds but this opinion can vary greatly. It is apparent that the majority of people think we either aren't on our road to hell, or we are driving the opposite direction and going away from it.
When I talk to people about politics, it is funny. As pissed off as they get with Bush, you ask them how Gore or Kerry would have done and they admit to wanting bush instead. If you ask them about Obama or clinton, it get sort of iffy too. They don't seem to be interested in their pledges to get rid of the bush tax cuts which means they will be paying more once again in an economy that is soaking them dry. So for at least a few people, we could be sitting still on the road if some people are elected and moving one way or another if a different person if elected. However, the idea of hell and the road to it will be different to each and every one of them. That makes it a little of a clouded issue escaping the real truth to the matters.
George Orwell was an Old Etonian... (Score:1, Interesting)
George Orwell was no radical, came from a posh privileged background, and tried to thwart those who were fighting the ruling classes. In the mean time, he made a good living convincing the prols to buy his books and waste their energy wittering on about them while his kith and kin carried on as usual.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:4, Interesting)
More proof that majority rule can be a miserable failure... when the majority is un/misinformed and too comfortable to give a damn about anyone else and thus wrong. Those of us who care about our rights need to protect ourselves from them.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:1, Interesting)
- Voted in favour of extending detention without charge from 7 to 14 to 28 days based on basically the same arguements as 42 days. And he's *not* saying now that 28 days was a mistake.
- Voted against an equal age of consent
- Voted in favour of the original enabling legislation for ID cards (although he's aparently against them now)
- Voted in favour of the death penalty, which whatever you think of the principle, in practice means the state will regularly kill innocent people - maybe only a small number, but an innocent person being judicially killed has got to be about the worst state infringement of civil rights possible.
So as a libertarian myself, excuse me if I'm not impressed. I can easily see an alternate reality in which if he had been home secretary and was doing the 'tough on terror' bit, he would have found all sorts of good reasons why 42 or 56 or 90 days was just fine.
Labour and the Tories both *stink* on civil liberties in general. Under the right circumstances, they would both sacrifice just about any rights we have if they thought it would show up the other party or pander to the tabloids.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Our Voices Have Been Muzzled (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are going to start metering the internet, it's time we start metering media corporations by the bit for information sent over *public domain* airwaves. Let every citizen get a quarterly dividend check paid by those *renting* their spectrum. Then when the price of cable, or cellular service doubles, we can double the price of renting the spectrum. Call it the Citizen Spectrum Compensation Act.
Re:Opposite problem in Italy (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because Italy, rather than Fascism, is going towards Cleptocracy. As I would define it, Fascism is when those in power pass laws blatantly biased in favour of the elite. In Cleptocracy, the elites do not change the laws, they only make sure a different set of laws applies to them in practice.
Just to correct you a little bit: they were not "leaked" to the newspapers, they were legitimately published, as they should be, after investigations were closed and the instantiation of the trial was approved. Only the parts relevant to the trial were published. With the proposed law, journalists would serve 3 or 5 years in jail only for telling people what is the evidence presented against someone in a court of law.
Re:Where's the outrage in the rest of the free wor (Score:3, Interesting)