Misplaced Pages

Talk:FRA law: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:52, 26 June 2008 editPlrk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,219 edits →NPOV?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:43, 2 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,629,199 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Sweden}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{ITNtalk|19 June|2008}} {{ITN talk|19 June|2008}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=Mid}}
}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:FRA law/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== Sources == == Sources ==

Here's some sources to look into. Here's some sources to look into.
* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/ * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/
Line 11: Line 26:
// ] (]) // ] (])


== Relevance of most of the text? ==
⚫ == NPOV? ==

Shouldn't there be any arguments that are in favor of the legislation in the reaction section?
Most of the text of this article, about a law which now has been passed by the Swedish riksdag, consists of various pieces of opinion on the bill from political youth organizations and various companies and websites. It reads very much like a list, the encyclopedic ] of which must be questioned. This is the problem of writing Misplaced Pages articles somewhat in the style of campaign blogs (but less POV) - the content easily becomes outdated and less relevant. In a democracy, laws are passed by the legislature where the people's elected representatives vote - and not various youth organisations (which sometimes have ''very'' few active members), but still the article is focused on their (stated) opinions. My suggestion: state that the proposal was highly controversial and sparked much debate, that some organisations affiliated with the governmental parties were against it, and cite the voting results. Then ditch everything else which goes through the position of all these organisations. ] (]) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:Although I've written most of the content, I agree. It's too much. But it's all pretty notable, I can't pick what goes and what stays. And creating a subarticle ("]") would just move the problem. However, it is without doubt notable and worthy of inclusion that ''all'' riksdag party youth organizations - mind you, ''including'' those whose mother parties are in favor of the proposal - are against the proposal, along with many other reputable political and economical forces (Google, Bahnhof, Teliasonera, Journalistförbundet, Advokatsamfundet - the list goes on and on). ] (]) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

⚫ ::Seriously, I'd say the protests against the law are more notable than the law itself. ] (]) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While shorter than when I wrote my comment above, the relevance of what's left isn't that good. "Worries" from the ] about legislation in Sweden? To me that's a comment that's edited in if you're looking for arguments from one side, irrespective if that side is well informed. Because note: '''zero''' content on the explanations from the Swedish Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Director-General of FRA and other people, which have invariably included strong statements that the critics have misunderstood a lot. A clear case of undue weight, which means that I've readded the POV template. For the moment, this article is very substandard in relation to the corresponding ]. ] (]) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== Childish nitpicking ==

Alright, while I'm not a great fan of Aftonbladet and what it stands for, the last piece of text in this article is laughable. "that prioritize gossip, exaggerate recent events and other "junk"...

If it's not a reliable source, just edit away the "facts" presented. A comment like the one above has no place in a dictionary, online or not. Whether people will accept the facts presented by the magazine is up to them, just make a hyperlink to Aftonbladet as the source of the claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== This article is factually wrong, inaccurate, not neutral and sources are dead or missing ==

Sorry to pan whoever is maintaining this, but it has to be said; this article isn't very well written or maintained. You can tell from the opening paragraph alone, this isn't going to be one the most accurate articles on Misplaced Pages. Quote:

{{quotation|The FRA law (FRA-lagen in Swedish) is a Swedish legislative package that authorizes the Swedish Defence Radio Authority to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders.}}

First of all, please note there aren't any working citations supporting this statement. No wonder, since the law does in fact '''not''' authorize the FRA to ''"warrantlessly wiretap all"'' traffic.

Calling it "warrantless" is factually wrong, because any SIGINT done by the FRA has to be authorized by the The Defense Intelligence Court ("Försvarsunderrättelsedomstolen"), which is a court appointed by the government and is independent of the FRA.<ref>'''', Legal text on The Defense Intelligence Court, 2009:966</ref><ref>'''', The act on how The Defense Intelligence Court should work, 2009:968</ref><ref>'''', Official webpage of The Defense Intelligence Court</ref>

Also, there are obviously laws limiting FRA's intelligence-gathering, something the opening paragraph ignores completely. According to Swedish law<ref>'''', The Swedish SIGINT law, 2008:717 (in Swedish)</ref>, signals intelligence is only permitted in order to assess:

# external military threats to the country,
# conditions for Swedish participation in peace support operations and international humanitarian efforts or any threat to the security of national interests in the implementation of such efforts,
# strategic matters regarding international terrorism or other serious transnational crime that could threaten important national interests,
# development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, military equipment and items referred to in the law on the control of dual-use items and technical assistance,
# serious external threats to the public infrastructure,
# conflicts abroad with ramifications for international security,
# foreign intelligence operations against national interests, or
# a foreign powers' actions or intentions of vital importance to Swedish foreign policy or security and defense policy.

The Defense Intelligence Court have never AFAIK -- and cannot according to the law -- issue a general warrant giving the FRA the authorization to do any and all intelligence gathering they wish. So no, the FRA doesn't wiretap ''all'' traffic, as claimed in the opening paragraph. That's another factual error, and a very important one at that.

Additionally, The Defence Intelligence Commission ("Statens inspektion för försvarsunderrättelseverksamheten", or "SIUN" for short) provides oversight of the FRA, making sure it follows court orders issued by the The Defense Intelligence Court, and that all laws and regulations governing the FRA is followed, including privacy laws.<ref>'''', The act on how The Defence Intelligence Commission should work, 2009:969</ref><ref>'''', Official webpage of The Defence Intelligence Commission</ref> However, their job is quickly glanced over in the article, and then immediately dismissed by the following statement:

{{quotation|though experts argue both that it is impossible to differentiate between international traffic and traffic between Swedes and that the oversight by SIUN is not effective enough.}}

(Unfortunately, the cited BBC-article says nothing about experts, only ''critics''...)

Whoever wrote this did terrible job, IMO. Actually, considering how many issues this article has, maybe it's worse than that, maybe that person is out to purposely mislead people or use Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool against the law; something that is not that unreasonable to believe considering this page is also using a flow-chart made by people that publicly campaign "against all SIGINT." The flow-chart is made by Mark Klamberg, who has publicly campaigned against the law, which makes him an ''unreliable source of information'' in my eyes.

As for the rest of the article, it's basically just a huge Criticism Section, making the article look extremely lopsided. It's obvious there's a general slant held by the editors against the law, forcing me ''question the neutrality of the article'' as a whole.

That's all for now. Feel free to respond. I might come back later with a partial rewrite, but I'm very busy ATM... ] (]) 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


{{reflist}}
For Example: 1)] has a long history of participating in international military operations, including most recently, Afghanistan, where Swedish troops are under NATO command, and in EU sponsored peacekeeping operations in UN protectorate Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Cyprus. Consequently, Sweden could be viewed by terrorist sponsoring entitites as a possible target because of its cooperation in the war on terror or other military activities. 2) The murder of foreign minister ], in 2003, may have been thwarted by intelligence gathered through the use of this type of legislation. These events support the argument that Sweden is using this legislation to protect itself, not to abuse its citizens' rights to communication.--] (]) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


:This article has now accordingly been marked as having multiple issues: including a disputed neutrality, citation and reference problems, using unreliable sources, and for having a Criticism or Controversy section that compromises the article's neutral point of view. ] (]) 02:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:I do agree arguments like this should be inserted into the article, but they are complete bullshit. Sweden as afaik suffered TWO casualties in afghanistan: thanks to a landmine. I strongly doubt those who planted this mine discussed this via swedish e-mail servers. The murder of Anna Lindh was carried out by a stand-alone psychologically unstable madman, who did not discuss it with anyone either. If incidents like those are the "outside threat" that warrant constantly wiretapping nine million people, every single nation on Earth would have implemented similar measures. But yes, this argument should be echoed in the article - a section on the debate in the Riksdag should be added. ] (]) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


⚫ == Rewrite ==
::I agree with you in both areas. I personally think that the wiretapping is b.s. also. But to be fair, the article needs some referencing to each side of the argument. --] (]) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Just a heads up, I've now started working on a rewrite. Since almost everything in the "Protests and criticism" section is unsourced or has broken links (references 5-31), and nothing has changed, despite me asking for feedback above back in December 2013, I'll probably go ahead and remove everything soon. These are the only things properly referenced, with working links:
⚫ :::I will work on this when I am done with the reactions of the party youth organizations. ] (]) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


*
::::There aren't any real arguments ''in favor'' for the FRA law. Arguments in favor for the law are nothing but mindless propaganda. I mean... it's all ''based'' on lies. The only terrorism we've seen (9/11, 7/7, etc..) is state-sponsored false flag events. There isn't any real, grassroots terrorism on this planet. BUT--even if there were (let's assume for the moment the Easter Bunny is real), MORE people die from choking on NUTS per year than dying because of TERRORISM. More people die from getting struck by lightning. More die in automobile accidents. More people die from drowning vs. getting killed by a terrorist. Now, are there some people in radical ethnic groups that would like to go around and kill certain people? Sure. But, they pose virtually no threat to society, or any country, since they can't get organized and don't have the funding, or support, to carry out any "attacks". People in Sweden are not afraid of "terrorists". People here hardly even ever think about it. Nobody in the civilian population wants the FRA-law. The arguments in favor for the law are based on lies. And the people DON'T want it. What Riksdagen did on June 18th was completely lawless and undemocratic. The previous head of FRA - Anders Wik - has admitted, on tape, that they've been illegally spying on us since 1976 via satellite, and said himself that it violates the European Convention (recorded by Rick Falkvinge). '''The FRA-law is a totally unwarranted, illegal law.''' Nobody wants it. It's morally wrong, and it ''clearly'' violates our Constitution (Ground Law), and the European Convention. ''EVEN'' if a threat of terrorism existed and was real, the law would ''still'' not be justified. ] (])] (]) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


*
:::::Yeah, it's sorta argue about the threat of terrorism in a neutral country. The last terrorist attack in Sweden was about 30 years ago by communist extremists. ] (]) 16:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


*
Seriously now. The article IS written from a neutral point of view - however, it is unbalanced. Therefore, the POV tag goes and the unbalanced tag stays, ok? ] (]) 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


*
== "Brokep"? ==


*
The article currently says "The Pirate Bay's brokep has responded on his blog..." Is "brokep" a typo for something else? ] (]) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
: For an explanation, look at ]. I'll wikilink the name to ease confusion. -- ''']]''' 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
:: I removed the mention of "brokep" and made it say simply "Peter Sunde" instead. While it is true he might be more well-known by his moniker, this is an encyclopedia, and not an internet forum. Also, even by the "brokep" nick, he is hardly known outside "technical" circles. Nor has he ever made any attempt to hide his real name. ] (]) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't find any of this particularly noteworthy, except maybe for the poll, and most of the stuff in this section a complete mess anyway, so I see little to no reason for me to try to keep this mess in the article.] (]) 03:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
== History ==


== Possible merge? ==
As of now, this article isn't very encyclopedic: it says a law was passed and that lots of people hate it. While this is true, it says nothing of it's history. Rest assured, I will cover this. Just wait and see. ] (]) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


The rewrite is done. I'm pretty content, however, it would make a whole lot of sense to merge this page with the ], IMO. That article is not that long or extensive, important things are missing, and material is duplicated or overlaps (can't be helped). For example, the oversight of FRA is missing on that page, and that pretty much ties back to the changes in legislation, so it dosn't make a lot of sense keeping it split. At a quick glance, if the duplicated material on that page is removed, the article shouldn't become that much bigger after a merge.
== UEFA European Football Championship ==
As a football fan I of course wonder what ] has to do with FRA-lagen? Is it necessary to include all published statements, especially when they are completely off topic, like this one? Please remove it from the article. //] (]) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Since I've made myself quite familiar with FRA and the legislation, these past couple of days, it wouldn't be much of a problem fixing this in a heartbeat. Not yet sure how I'm supposed to go about this though. Any suggestions? Anyway, I might come back to this after I read up on things... ] (]) 10:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:It's not "completely off topic"... Sweden participated, and thus, most Swedes sat in their chairs at home watching football, instead of paying attention to reality and the world around them. It's an age old trick that criminal elites have used throughout history when they wish to implement some new legislation, bill or pass a draconian law. One good example is: '''Two days before Christmas''', while most of the US Congress was at home with their families, they rammed through the ''Federal Reserve Act''... ] (]) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


::I'm formally proposing a merger now... If you have an opinion, please '''don't post it here''', join the discussion on the ]. ] (]) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::The actual reason for it being notable enough for inclusion was that a prominent Swedish politician compared Sweden to Russia and the government to that of Stalin. Far from all published statements are included, but an official statement by the spokesperson of a major political organization is included. ] (]) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:43, 2 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FRA law redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
In the newsA news item involving FRA law was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 June 2008.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSweden Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

Here's some sources to look into.

// Liftarn (talk)

Relevance of most of the text?

Most of the text of this article, about a law which now has been passed by the Swedish riksdag, consists of various pieces of opinion on the bill from political youth organizations and various companies and websites. It reads very much like a list, the encyclopedic relevance of which must be questioned. This is the problem of writing Misplaced Pages articles somewhat in the style of campaign blogs (but less POV) - the content easily becomes outdated and less relevant. In a democracy, laws are passed by the legislature where the people's elected representatives vote - and not various youth organisations (which sometimes have very few active members), but still the article is focused on their (stated) opinions. My suggestion: state that the proposal was highly controversial and sparked much debate, that some organisations affiliated with the governmental parties were against it, and cite the voting results. Then ditch everything else which goes through the position of all these organisations. Tomas e (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I've written most of the content, I agree. It's too much. But it's all pretty notable, I can't pick what goes and what stays. And creating a subarticle ("Criticism of the FRA law") would just move the problem. However, it is without doubt notable and worthy of inclusion that all riksdag party youth organizations - mind you, including those whose mother parties are in favor of the proposal - are against the proposal, along with many other reputable political and economical forces (Google, Bahnhof, Teliasonera, Journalistförbundet, Advokatsamfundet - the list goes on and on). Plrk (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I'd say the protests against the law are more notable than the law itself. Plrk (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While shorter than when I wrote my comment above, the relevance of what's left isn't that good. "Worries" from the Danish National Church about legislation in Sweden? To me that's a comment that's edited in if you're looking for arguments from one side, irrespective if that side is well informed. Because note: zero content on the explanations from the Swedish Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Director-General of FRA and other people, which have invariably included strong statements that the critics have misunderstood a lot. A clear case of undue weight, which means that I've readded the POV template. For the moment, this article is very substandard in relation to the corresponding sv:FRA-lagen. Tomas e (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Childish nitpicking

Alright, while I'm not a great fan of Aftonbladet and what it stands for, the last piece of text in this article is laughable. "that prioritize gossip, exaggerate recent events and other "junk"...

If it's not a reliable source, just edit away the "facts" presented. A comment like the one above has no place in a dictionary, online or not. Whether people will accept the facts presented by the magazine is up to them, just make a hyperlink to Aftonbladet as the source of the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.159.186 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is factually wrong, inaccurate, not neutral and sources are dead or missing

Sorry to pan whoever is maintaining this, but it has to be said; this article isn't very well written or maintained. You can tell from the opening paragraph alone, this isn't going to be one the most accurate articles on Misplaced Pages. Quote:

The FRA law (FRA-lagen in Swedish) is a Swedish legislative package that authorizes the Swedish Defence Radio Authority to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders.

First of all, please note there aren't any working citations supporting this statement. No wonder, since the law does in fact not authorize the FRA to "warrantlessly wiretap all" traffic.

Calling it "warrantless" is factually wrong, because any SIGINT done by the FRA has to be authorized by the The Defense Intelligence Court ("Försvarsunderrättelsedomstolen"), which is a court appointed by the government and is independent of the FRA.

Also, there are obviously laws limiting FRA's intelligence-gathering, something the opening paragraph ignores completely. According to Swedish law, signals intelligence is only permitted in order to assess:

  1. external military threats to the country,
  2. conditions for Swedish participation in peace support operations and international humanitarian efforts or any threat to the security of national interests in the implementation of such efforts,
  3. strategic matters regarding international terrorism or other serious transnational crime that could threaten important national interests,
  4. development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, military equipment and items referred to in the law on the control of dual-use items and technical assistance,
  5. serious external threats to the public infrastructure,
  6. conflicts abroad with ramifications for international security,
  7. foreign intelligence operations against national interests, or
  8. a foreign powers' actions or intentions of vital importance to Swedish foreign policy or security and defense policy.

The Defense Intelligence Court have never AFAIK -- and cannot according to the law -- issue a general warrant giving the FRA the authorization to do any and all intelligence gathering they wish. So no, the FRA doesn't wiretap all traffic, as claimed in the opening paragraph. That's another factual error, and a very important one at that.

Additionally, The Defence Intelligence Commission ("Statens inspektion för försvarsunderrättelseverksamheten", or "SIUN" for short) provides oversight of the FRA, making sure it follows court orders issued by the The Defense Intelligence Court, and that all laws and regulations governing the FRA is followed, including privacy laws. However, their job is quickly glanced over in the article, and then immediately dismissed by the following statement:

though experts argue both that it is impossible to differentiate between international traffic and traffic between Swedes and that the oversight by SIUN is not effective enough.

(Unfortunately, the cited BBC-article says nothing about experts, only critics...)

Whoever wrote this did terrible job, IMO. Actually, considering how many issues this article has, maybe it's worse than that, maybe that person is out to purposely mislead people or use Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool against the law; something that is not that unreasonable to believe considering this page is also using a flow-chart made by people that publicly campaign "against all SIGINT." The flow-chart is made by Mark Klamberg, who has publicly campaigned against the law, which makes him an unreliable source of information in my eyes.

As for the rest of the article, it's basically just a huge Criticism Section, making the article look extremely lopsided. It's obvious there's a general slant held by the editors against the law, forcing me question the neutrality of the article as a whole.

That's all for now. Feel free to respond. I might come back later with a partial rewrite, but I'm very busy ATM... Gavleson (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. , Legal text on The Defense Intelligence Court, 2009:966
  2. , The act on how The Defense Intelligence Court should work, 2009:968
  3. , Official webpage of The Defense Intelligence Court
  4. , The Swedish SIGINT law, 2008:717 (in Swedish)
  5. , The act on how The Defence Intelligence Commission should work, 2009:969
  6. , Official webpage of The Defence Intelligence Commission
This article has now accordingly been marked as having multiple issues: including a disputed neutrality, citation and reference problems, using unreliable sources, and for having a Criticism or Controversy section that compromises the article's neutral point of view. Gavleson (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Just a heads up, I've now started working on a rewrite. Since almost everything in the "Protests and criticism" section is unsourced or has broken links (references 5-31), and nothing has changed, despite me asking for feedback above back in December 2013, I'll probably go ahead and remove everything soon. These are the only things properly referenced, with working links:

I don't find any of this particularly noteworthy, except maybe for the poll, and most of the stuff in this section a complete mess anyway, so I see little to no reason for me to try to keep this mess in the article.Gavleson (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible merge?

The rewrite is done. I'm pretty content, however, it would make a whole lot of sense to merge this page with the article on FRA, IMO. That article is not that long or extensive, important things are missing, and material is duplicated or overlaps (can't be helped). For example, the oversight of FRA is missing on that page, and that pretty much ties back to the changes in legislation, so it dosn't make a lot of sense keeping it split. At a quick glance, if the duplicated material on that page is removed, the article shouldn't become that much bigger after a merge.

Since I've made myself quite familiar with FRA and the legislation, these past couple of days, it wouldn't be much of a problem fixing this in a heartbeat. Not yet sure how I'm supposed to go about this though. Any suggestions? Anyway, I might come back to this after I read up on things... Gavleson (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm formally proposing a merger now... If you have an opinion, please don't post it here, join the discussion on the talk page here. Gavleson (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories: