Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:34, 18 July 2008

A news item involving FRA law was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 June 2008.

Sources

Here's some sources to look into.

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/
• http://www.thelocal.se/12334/20080610/
• http://www.thelocal.se/12370.html
• http://www.thelocal.se/12428/
• http://www.thelocal.se/12514/
• http://www.comon.dk/news/den.svenske.stat.vil.overvaage.al.internettrafik_36575.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/18/eavedropping_sweden_now_legal/

// Liftarn (talk)

NPOV?

Shouldn't there be any arguments that are in favor of the legislation in the reaction section?

For Example: 1)Sweden 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 Anna Lindh, 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.--Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (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. Plrk (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will work on this when I am done with the reactions of the party youth organizations. Plrk (talk) 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. Anonymous (talk)81.233.185.12 (talk) 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. 69.177.222.161 (talk) 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? Plrk (talk) 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? Pince Nez (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For an explanation, look at Peter Sunde. I'll wikilink the name to ease confusion. -- Atama 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. Plrk (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

History

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. Plrk (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA European Football Championship

As a football fan I of course wonder what UEFA European Football Championship 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. //StefanB sv (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (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... 81.233.185.12 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (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. Plrk (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Harmony between articles

Could someone who speaks Swedish please work on making this article and the Swedish article essentially the same? It has more sources, etc. I know that they have the criticism merged with the article there, but we can also mix that with our criticism article. 69.177.200.165 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Synchronisation or no synchronisation, this and the criticism article definitely need to be updated. --Kizor 11:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey. --Kizor 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles