ENDitorial: A new "NSA FRAnchise" set up in Sweden?

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

Lex Orwell, a law proposal for total surveillance, is urgently being
pushed to a vote on 17 June 2008 by national security hawks in the
peaceful Kingdom of Sweden. It will mandate the “NSA franchise”, the
FRA, to turn its forest of parabola ears and world’s 5th largest super
computer to listen to you – or rather what you do, say and share on the
Internet – would an information package pass the Swedish borders.

FRA is the Swedish shorthand for The National Defence Radio
Establishment. An institution very active during the cold war but
without a clear task or purpose today since material from satellite
traffic from military activities the Baltics isn’t particularly a la
mode any more. To stay in business, FRA has therefore for years pursued
a long term strategy to “improve raw material supply through
partnerships” and to provide “on demand” intelligence to “support
government authorities and state owned companies regarding current IT
threats”.

That does not make FRA into an “NSA franchise”, does it? Well, a retired
FRA Intelligence Officer was recently quoted in a report to the Swedish
Journalist Fund for Education saying “Maybe FRA is a Swedish
organisation, which in limited ways cooperate with foreign intelligence
services. Or FRA is a part of an international surveillance group which
to a limited extent cooperate with the Swedish authorities. The problem
is that it is only FRA who knows.”

While national security and “state secret privileges” are complex
matters of parliamentary checks and balances, the question is if Lex
Orwell got it right. Nobody in the public sphere seems to think so. In
answers from eight heavyweight institutions to the government’s hearing
on Lex Orwell it is said it is “in breach of ECHR”, “like wire-tapping
without a court order”, “general surveillance (…) of the content of
telephone calls and messages”, “lacking in understanding (…) of
privacy”, “massive wire-tapping”, “seriously flawed” and that “the State
is acquiring the telecommunications traffic”. If this critique was
not enough, former director of the FRA himself says FRA activity is in
breach of European law. To the layman the set-up seems
indistinguishable from what allegedly is happening in the USA where AT&T
is accused of “violating the law and the privacy of its customers by
collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive,
illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans’ communications”.

Why should you care what is happening in Sweden? Well, it turns out that
Sweden is one of the countries that has actively blocked the
Commission’s third pillar proposal from 2005 for protection of personal
data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters. Professor Elspeth Guild writes in 2007: “A
battery of measures have been announced in the First and Third Pillars
(…) which are aimed at a substantial increase in surveillance of the
citizen, his or her movements, statements, actions and activities. At
the same time, the protection of the citizen from wrongful use of his or
her personal data has lagged very substantially behind for instance, the
continuing blockage of the Third Pillar Framework Decision on data
protection.”. Statewatch told us already in 2006 that a “number of
delegations (CH, CZ, DK, IE, SE and UK) has expressed doubts against the
inclusion of data processed in a purely domestic context.”. Why?

At about the same time the Commission answers the parliamentary question
E-1300/2007 whether Sweden has the right to conclude an exclusive
agreement with the USA on research into terrorism and civilian security
issues, saying would such research transfer personal data to third
countries, it would be regulated by European law: “It is important to
underline that exchange on either security research projects or on
threat assessment does not necessarily imply exchange of personal data
which are subject to the EU data protection rules. However, any such
activities must fully respect the fundamental rights, privacy and civil
liberties of individuals.”.

Now, what about “raw material supply through partnerships”?

It is said that only four (4) Swedish libertarians in the ruling
coalition is needed to postpone Lex Orwell. Grab your phone and call
them. International calls are still free, as in free speech.

FRA’s “Open Budget” for 2009-2011 (only in Swedish, 17.03.2008)
http://www.fra.se/bilagor/0319-bul2009-2011.pdf

FRA, brief presentation in English
http://www.fra.se/english.shtml

“Försvarets Radioanstalt – 2003-2004” by Martin Jönsson a report to “Journalistfonden för vidareutbildning” (only in Swedish, 27.02.2005)
http://periodista.se/FRA03_04.pdf

Video recording from San Francisco Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Hepting v. AT&T (23.01.2008)

Collection of some Swedish institution’s opinions of Lex Orwell (only in Swedish, 3.06.2008)
http://www.digitalidag.se/index.php?title=Sammanfattning_av_remissvaren&oldid=1268

Interview with Anders Wik, former FRA director (only in Swedish, 31.05.2008)
http://computersweden.idg.se/2.2683/1.165280

General information related to EFF’s class action lawsuit against AT&T
http://www.eff.org/nsa/hepting

European parliament’s legislative observatory page on DPFD
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5279032

“Making the EU Citizens’ Agenda Work” by Elspeth Guild (9.02.2007)
http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1460

Council document 13918/06 (13.10.2006)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/oct/eu-dp-issues-13918-06.pdf

Parliamentary question E-1300/2007 (1.06.2007)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2007-1300&language=EN

Article referred to in question E-1300/2007 (only in Swedish, 28.02.2007)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/innovation/forskning_utveckling/article42632.ece

(Contribution by Erik Josefsson)