This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plrk (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 24 June 2008 (→NPOV?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:49, 24 June 2008 by Plrk (talk | contribs) (→NPOV?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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/
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)
"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)