Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 4 November 2013 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:FRA law) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about FRA law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)