Democracy in sweden died today...

[Becci]

On the other point of view, monitoring != controlling, and first of all if I was a government I think I would consider this as a possibility in order to protect my country. I don't (and it would be naive to) trust the entire nation. It isn't like they'd monitor every single phone call or every email.

Secondly, they tried to implement this in various other places, including the states. Some people (not quite sure who) caught the government at it and everyone was super pissed. At least the Swedish government let people know? The Swedish government truly does appear to care about its people, as seen from good the excellent health care services and governmental assistance towards pregnancy etc. I think that they put safety above the preferences of the people, because sometimes you'd have to choose one over the other - and they want to make the right decision before someone gets hurt.

[Hamburger]

Originally Posted by Becci

On the other point of view, monitoring != controlling, and first of all if I was a government I think I would consider this as a possibility in order to protect my country. I don't (and it would be naive to) trust the entire nation. It isn't like they'd monitor every single phone call or every email.

Secondly, they tried to implement this in various other places, including the states. Some people (not quite sure who) caught the government at it and everyone was super pissed. At least the Swedish government let people know? The Swedish government truly does appear to care about its people, as seen from good the excellent health care services and governmental assistance towards pregnancy etc. I think that they put safety above the preferences of the people, because sometimes you'd have to choose one over the other - and they want to make the right decision before someone gets hurt.

Well of course, the new system can be very helpful. Catch potential terrorist, drug dealers, and maybe internet pedo's. But the thing is a democracy revolves around the people's wants. And i can almost gurantee nobody wants the system. None of you know, nor do I, what it feels knowing somone can secretly pry in on my life with the click of a button. But their system is almost similar to homeland security in America. You know the governemnt can pry in on your life just because your suspected terroist? Their mainly going all in on a gut feeling.
The system has benefiets, but has many downfalls. But then again someone might come in asking why worry about the system if your not doing anything illegal?

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Becci

...It isn't like they'd monitor every single phone call or every email.
...

But that's the problem. That's exactly what they now CAN do. They can do whatever they want with you. Everything you do on the internet can be monitored and saved. You no longer have any privacy whatsoever. If you are a little bit controversial in political discussions it can be used against you in the court.

[NATURALSPIRIT]

Originally Posted by Becci

They tried to do that with Hong Kong (search up 'article 23' on Wikipedia if you're interested). It was a little more overt than your situation to be honest - although the new law in Sweden explicitly allows complete surveillance, it's still a small jump from that to abuse and Nazi Germany. Fair enough, it's a first step ... so alarm bells should be ringing. I hope that the people of Sweden fight back and let the government know this new decision is not welcome.

Of all the places I would expect democracy to fall, Sweden was on the bottom of my list. I saw a documentary where it said the people in Sweden have the highest standards of living/assistance in health care etc. and have the lowest baby mortality rates. People in Sweden were also one of the 'happiest'. So ... reading this is surprising.

Article 23 stated "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government" ... basically, we nearly couldn't act against the government at all. That was, until 500,000 citizens marched in protest (keeping in mind there are around 6-7 million citizens in HK overall, so that's a big percentage). The government got scared and shelved Article 23. Good riddance.

It's true. I (Norwegian, Swedish, and German descent) was considering moving to Sweden or Norway... now Sweden is off my list until this changes. I just hope my second dream of moving to Norway isn't foiled.

Anyhow, I do not suspect Sweden to do a large march like HK did.

And from what I'm reading, it's only saying that e-mails and phone calls will be monitored... does anyone have a better source?

Originally Posted by Legion

Today the swedish democracy and integrity died a silent death...
Our parliament decided to vote yes to complete surveillance
of all electronic communication in and out of the country.
Nolonger are we free but will be monitored 24/7 by a defense agency,
whose goal is supposedly to protect us from threats they can't motivate.
The law is written so loose they are basicly allowed to monitor anything and anyone they want.
This is a sad day.
WHEN information leak, WHEN innocent people gets abused,
then im going to be there and remind everyone....
Never forget 18/6 when we lost our right to privacy
and to never forget thoose who was responsible for this act of treason...
Welcome to DDR 2.0
(Former east germany for those who are to young to know of it.
Who monitored and abused their citizens, for so called "protection")
Mankind will never learn from history it seems..

But we will never surrender, we will never give up, the fight must continue!
Our freedom must be reclaimed!

/Legion

Do fight. I can't say that Sweden has a bad history behind their government... but this does not guarantee the government will not take it further. Fight for what you WANT, and don't let your voices go unheard.

[Whist]

Originally Posted by Legion

Today the swedish democracy and integrity died a silent death...
Our parliament decided to vote yes to complete surveillance
of all electronic communication in and out of the country.
Nolonger are we free but will be monitored 24/7 by a defense agency,
whose goal is supposedly to protect us from threats they can't motivate.
The law is written so loose they are basicly allowed to monitor anything and anyone they want.
This is a sad day.
WHEN information leak, WHEN innocent people gets abused,
then im going to be there and remind everyone....
Never forget 18/6 when we lost our right to privacy
and to never forget thoose who was responsible for this act of treason...
Welcome to DDR 2.0
(Former east germany for those who are to young to know of it.
Who monitored and abused their citizens, for so called "protection")
Mankind will never learn from history it seems..

But we will never surrender, we will never give up, the fight must continue!
Our freedom must be reclaimed!

/Legion

AMERICA IS RIGHT BEHIND YOU!

Vroom vroom we're catching up.

Blame the central banks. I did my final for speech class this year on central banks (mainly U.S. one) and how they're destroying countries since they're not part of the government but are able to control it (yes federal bank is not a government agency and legally you don't have to pay income tax, but you will still be sent to jail for not paying more often than not).

The 2012 doomsday theory seems to be the most believable one yet.
A global government is coming.

[Becci]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

But that's the problem. That's exactly what they now CAN do. They can do whatever they want with you. Everything you do on the internet can be monitored and saved. You no longer have any privacy whatsoever. If you are a little bit controversial in political discussions it can be used against you in the court.

Sweden is not ruled by a dictatorship. Freedom of speech is still allowed there, and I think the main intent of implementing that system is not to crack down on political activists, but on real terrorists or truly harmful opportunities that transcend far beyond political discussions on the internet. I admit there is an opportunity for abuse, but I think the world is far too proactive (from past horrific events - Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.) to let anything of that sort happen again, especially to a developed country like Sweden.

Originally Posted by Hamburger

Well of course, the new system can be very helpful. Catch potential terrorist, drug dealers, and maybe internet pedo's. But the thing is a democracy revolves around the people's wants. And i can almost gurantee nobody wants the system.

I think some rights have to be revoked in order to keep people safe. I believe it's a fair trade - privacy versus potential lives saved ... that decision is not difficult for me. Complete freedom/privacy with total safety is an unattainable and unrealistic utopia.

Sorry if my posts are incoherent or unclear ... it's really late and for some reason I am very tired. I might edit this later.

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Becci

Sweden is not ruled by a dictatorship. Freedom of speech is still allowed there, and I think the main intent of implementing that system is not to crack down on political activists, but on real terrorists or truly harmful opportunities that transcend far beyond political discussions on the internet. I admit there is an opportunity for abuse, but I think the world is far too proactive (from past horrific events - Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.) to let anything of that sort happen again, especially to a developed country like Sweden.

I think some rights have to be revoked in order to keep people safe. I believe it's a fair trade - privacy versus potential lives saved ... that decision is not difficult for me. Complete freedom/privacy with total safety is an unattainable and unrealistic utopia.

Sorry if my posts are incoherent or unclear ... it's really late and for some reason I am very tired. I might edit this later.

If the government gets to invade the citizens' privacy, who gets to invade on the government's privacy?

[Legion]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

If the government gets to invade the citizens' privacy, who gets to invade on the government's privacy?

Exactly!
"Who watch the watcher? Who guard the guardian?"
A system like this consider EVERYONE a potential criminal.
Something that always happen is that the usage of machines/methods etc change over time.
A good example is the so called PKU register we have in Sweden.
It's a biobank with blod & tissue samples of newborn children.
This register IS meant for research.
But the police wants to get their hands on it and they have already used it to some degree.
This is how usage areas change.
Now the governament wants to investigate the fact of letting the police have access to it.
Personally i will send a letter and have them destroy my sample.
Because i don't tolerate such means of control.

Back to the surveillance issue.
Now imagine how there could be other areas of use for it.
Documenting peoples lives, opinions, searching for "criminal patterns".
It might seem unreal but don't be misstaken.
We had a scandal back in 1973, where a secret agency called IB was discovered.
Even the parliament didn't know of it's existance.
IB documented peoples opinions(communist/leftwing), they had spies in other countries,
they infiltrated organisations, they worked together with CIA and israelian Shin Beth.

This is why i don't want such things in our system.
As long as humans are involved things will leak and be abused.
It has happened before and it will happen again.
Installing such a powertoy for coming regimes we have absolutely no idea about is plain scary.
What we need badly in Sweden is a constitutional court.
The surveillance law actually break our constitution,
in other words it shots of a fundamental leg in our democracy.

On the other hand they made enemy of a whole generation, the IT generation.
They can't silence us, ever...

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Becci

Sweden is not ruled by a dictatorship. Freedom of speech is still allowed there, and I think the main intent of implementing that system is not to crack down on political activists, but on real terrorists or truly harmful opportunities that transcend far beyond political discussions on the internet. I admit there is an opportunity for abuse, but I think the world is far too proactive (from past horrific events - Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.) to let anything of that sort happen again, especially to a developed country like Sweden.

Why not? I know of a teacher in their "next door" country, which is just as developed, who was suspended and lost his right to teach because he claimed weed wasn't dangerous. The media didn't go crazy for that.

We don't have freedom of speech. The UN has already put limitations on it because the general population feared terrorists.[]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

If the government gets to invade the citizens' privacy, who gets to invade on the government's privacy?

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Legion

On the other hand they made enemy of a whole generation, the IT generation.
They can't silence us, ever...

I fear they might be able to soon. Some ISPs around the world has begun blocking so that you can't download music pirat-style. Many ISPs has blocked child pornographic content for years. What hinders them from gradually blocking more? Sure there are proxies, but eventually they will illegalize it in order to get control. Only the real "pro's", like you, will be able to use the internet fully with private proxies. And there's a limit for what such a small amount of people can do against the whole world.

[Becci]

Originally Posted by Mr.Lucifer

Why not? I know of a teacher in their "next door" country, which is just as developed, who was suspended and lost his right to teach because he claimed weed wasn't dangerous. The media didn't go crazy for that.

We don't have freedom of speech. The UN has already put limitations on it because the general population feared terrorists.[]

I think the reason freedom of speech was first set up so that facts and unequivocal truths could be exposed. The press could, theoretically, run around and alert the world of important events or shifts. First of all, decorum is different from stifling freedom of speech. Is weed not dangerous for you? I really wouldn't know (since I don't research into properties of weed), but at that time the teacher, I believe, would have been under contract to act appropriately towards the student body and not do anything illegal. I also think it was less to do with freedom of speech and more to do with advocating weed .... and in some countries weed is illegal. Just like in the forums, you can't post porn because there are under aged people here -- not because the government wants to stifle you.

Freedom of speech/expression is an incredibly controversial right because it is the only right that can impede on the other human rights. For example, the anti-Islamic movie Fitna released by a Dutch politician (if you haven't watched this, please do) surely exercises freedom of speech, but how many other freedoms does it very possibly obstruct?

Perhaps these?
- "Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person."
- "...All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
- "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

How high do we hold freedom of speech so we allow lives to be killed and people to be gravely disrespected? Simply because you have freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that its all fine and dandy to offend and spew propaganda about a religion out there, nor does it mean you can advocate Nazism (which is very famous, as you know, for destroying fundamental human rights) etc.

And back to my original point ... facts can be hard to find. Using that Fitna example, that's freedom of speech, sure - but what substance did it add? Did it fulfill the original intention of letting the truth be freely widespread? Or did it just spread malicious, biased and equivocated untruths to other people? This is a case where freedom of speech is abused, and if people can't handle a such a basic freedom properly, then maybe - just maybe - there are minimal limits that should be set. Personally I'm all for freedom of speech, but I just think there is a lot of room for abuse.

You might argue that putting a limit on the freedom of speech makes room for abuse as well - since that's how dictatorships started. First off, I feel you are advocating the possibility of abuse to a possibility of people getting hurt another possibility of a dictatorship being established, to another possibility of ... well you get the point. Secondly, like I said before, the world is much more aware than it was 50 years ago. The citizens of a globe will not let Sweden fall into a dictatorship. The amount of assistance towards places of great conflict, such as Afghanistan, Burma, Kenya, Iraq, Taiwan etc. has been enormous, and is a testament of the growing awareness of society.

One of my favorite quotes:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~Soren Kierkegaard

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

If the government gets to invade the citizens' privacy, who gets to invade on the government's privacy?

You have to understand that I am not advocating the government to be in complete control. I think the government, like all governments, should be completely transparent in terms of its policies, ideas and plans. If the government chooses to implement a certain system it should be able to answer all the questions the public desires, so that everything is clear. If this is done, the government cannot expect to break their word and/or change plans suddenly, if they declare openly and succinctly everything that needs to be said. The integrity of word is incredibly highly valued; this is why politicians are so careful and vague with their words.

@Legion:
I understand that it is difficult to trust a government that has, in the past, not been completely truthful. However I think it's also equally important to focus on whether the government can provide legitimate information about the implementation of this current law, because if people simply hold onto mistakes in the past, sometimes that prevents development/advancement. I do agree that there should be a constitutional court, however, and I personally would also be looking at the government with an equally critical eye.

[Mr.Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Becci

I think the reason freedom of speech was first set up so that facts and unequivocal truths could be exposed. The press could, theoretically, run around and alert the world of important events or shifts. First of all, decorum is different from stifling freedom of speech. Is weed not dangerous for you? I really wouldn't know (since I don't research into properties of weed), but at that time the teacher, I believe, would have been under contract to act appropriately towards the student body and not do anything illegal. I also think it was less to do with freedom of speech and more to do with advocating weed .... and in some countries weed is illegal. Just like in the forums, you can't post porn because there are under aged people here -- not because the government wants to stifle you.

Freedom of speech/expression is an incredibly controversial right because it is the only right that can impede on the other human rights. For example, the anti-Islamic movie Fitna released by a Dutch politician (if you haven't watched this, please do) surely exercises freedom of speech, but how many other freedoms does it very possibly obstruct?

Perhaps these?
- "Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person."
- "...All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
- "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

How high do we hold freedom of speech so we allow lives to be killed and people to be gravely disrespected? Simply because you have freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that its all fine and dandy to offend and spew propaganda about a religion out there, nor does it mean you can advocate Nazism (which is very famous, as you know, for destroying fundamental human rights) etc.

And back to my original point ... facts can be hard to find. Using that Fitna example, that's freedom of speech, sure - but what substance did it add? Did it fulfill the original intention of letting the truth be freely widespread? Or did it just spread malicious, biased and equivocated untruths to other people? This is a case where freedom of speech is abused, and if people can't handle a such a basic freedom properly, then maybe - just maybe - there are minimal limits that should be set. Personally I'm all for freedom of speech, but I just think there is a lot of room for abuse.

You might argue that putting a limit on the freedom of speech makes room for abuse as well - since that's how dictatorships started. First off, I feel you are advocating the possibility of abuse to a possibility of people getting hurt another possibility of a dictatorship being established, to another possibility of ... well you get the point. Secondly, like I said before, the world is much more aware than it was 50 years ago. The citizens of a globe will not let Sweden fall into a dictatorship. The amount of assistance towards places of great conflict, such as Afghanistan, Burma, Kenya, Iraq, Taiwan etc. has been enormous, and is a testament of the growing awareness of society.

One of my favorite quotes:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~Soren Kierkegaard

I believe that freedom of speech should be more important than other rights. If you can't use your voice without a risk of losing your job you don't have freedom of speech. Democracy is based on freedom of speech. Without it you don't have a democracy.

Fitna is a good example of what you might call abuse. But who defines abuse? Who are you to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Some things that has to be said IS going to be offensive for some groups. Who decides what should be said? I think Fitna and the Muhammed drawings was unneccesary and only harmful but some say it illustrates how we shouldn't let the terror control us. We shouldn't let the ones with the bombs tell us what to do. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, but I can't tell them to do anything else. Drawing Muhammed is their way of doing it.

[Becci]

We've gone off really topic but if Mr. Lucifer wants me to reply to his post, I will do so. (:

Has anyone seen this?
The Pirate Bay Pledges ISPs to Block Sweden | TorrentFreak

[Heidenreich8]

Hah, yeah, I hear they're thinking of that here too.

[.sq]

heja sverige jätte bra.

[death song]

Almost every violation of human rights is supposedly done to make people more safe.