Navigation

Archive | Sweden

Appeals court blocks the Pirate Bay in Sweden

By on February 13, 2017 in Big Entertainment, Censorship, Copyright, File Sharing, Free Information, Intellectual Property, Internet, Sweden

A Swedish appeals court (the court for market and patent related issues) today ruled that the Internet service provider Bredbandsbolaget must block the Pirate Bay and the streaming service Swefilmer.

By definition, this is censorship.

Also, it is a ruling in direct conflict with the EU the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be held liable for what users are doing in their cables.

However, this is in line with court rulings in other European countries. And the court claims that the decision is based on EU law.

To confuse things further, the ISP has not been subject to any criminal charges or accusations of illegal activities. Nevertheless, the court seems to refer to a general »responsibilty« to stem illegal activities.

Where all of this leave the »mere conduit« principle (in the EU eCommerce directive) is unclear. Apparently, there are two conflicting sets of rules.

To abolish »mere conduit« is like holding the Post Office responsible for what is written and sent by mail. Or to hold road operators responsible for the intentions and actions of people traveling in cars using their infrastructure.

This is not reasonable. The ruling will open up for more censorship and surveillance.

And to top things of, no matter what, this form of blocking is not very effective and quite easy to circumvent.

/ HAX

Torrentfreak: The Pirate Bay Must Be Blocked in Sweden, Court of Appeal Rules »

1

Sweden to label piracy »organized crime«?

By on January 31, 2017 in Big Entertainment, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Sweden

Authorities in Sweden are mulling new measures to deal with evolving ‘pirate’ sites. As part of a legislative review, the government wants to assess potential legal tools, including categorizing large-scale infringement as organized crime, tougher sentences, domain seizures, and site-blocking.

TorrentFreak: Swedish Govt. Mulls Tougher Punishments to Tackle Pirate Sites »

0

Sweden – not so neutral, after all?

By on January 9, 2017 in Big Brother, GCHQ, Intelligence, IT security, NSA, Rule of law, surveillance, Sweden, UK, US

Possible targets might be the administrators of foreign computer networks, government ministries, oil, defense, and other major corporations, as well as suspected terrorist groups or other designated individuals. Similar Quantum operations have targeted OPEC headquarters in Vienna, as well as Belgacom, a Belgian telecom company whose clients include the European Commission and the European Parliament. (…)

Significantly, while WINTERLIGHT was a joint effort between the NSA, the Swedish FRA, and the British GCHQ, the hacking attacks on computers and computer networks seem to have been initiated by the Swedes.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Swedish intelligence agency FRA – together with British GCHQ – declined to participate in the European Parliaments hearings on mass surveillance.

The New York Review of Books: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar »

0

Sweden to outlaw… what, exactly?

By on November 21, 2016 in Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Rule of law, self-censorship, Sweden

For years, online hate speech and cyber-bullying have been on the political agenda in Sweden. Now there will be some new laws, covering a wide range of actions and statements.

Let’s have a look at »Insulting behaviour« (PDF, summary in English, page 42-43).

Under the wording we propose, criminal liability will presuppose that someone through accusations, disparaging comments or humiliating behaviour acts against another person in a way that is intended to violate the other person’s selfesteem or dignity.

What does this even mean in real terms? OK, there is an attempt to clarify…

The assessment is to be based on the circumstances in the individual case. However, criminal liability must be determined on the basis of a generally held norm for what represents unacceptable behaviour and what individuals should not be expected to tolerate. This is expressed by the provision stating that the act must have been intended to violate someone’s self-esteem or dignity.

First of all, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity for a law. »Disparaging comments« – isn’t that in the eye of the beholder? »Self-esteem« and »dignity« is something personal, referring to experiences and feelings about a certain situation. It’s very subjective. And »a generally held norm«? Who is to define what that is?

I guess the Supreme Court will have some very difficult decisions to make.

This is sloppy lawmaking in the »safe space« era, where the line between real insults and arguments is blurred. And it gets worse. Page 34, »Our starting points«:

Protection of privacy is also protection of the free formation of opinions and, ultimately, of democracy. There may be a risk that threats against journalists, debaters or opinion-makers result in the person threatened refraining from expressing him- or herself or participating in the public debate.

First of all, take note of the Orwellian twist: To defend free speech, we must limit it.

Second, as one would suspect, it’s not really about teenage bullying in school – but to protect the inner peace and self-image of e.g. journalists and politicians. Suddenly the term »disparaging comments« stands out, in a new light.

So, colorful criticism of politicians might or might not be illegal – on a case by case basis.

Big Brother will be busy.

/ HAX

1

The Assange case – time for the next step?

By on August 11, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Sweden, UK, US, Wikileaks

There are signals from Ecuador suggesting that Swedish prosecutors soon might interview Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange, in the country’s embassy in London – where he has been taking refuge for some four years.

From the Swedish prosecutor’s office (where everyone important seems to be on summer retreat) there are only vague comments. There are reasons to believe that the Swedes are in no hurry to get this done and over with.

As the case has dragged out in time, there seems to be some confusion in medias reports. To refresh our memory…

The Swedish case about sexual misconduct against Assange is very thin. There are reasons to believe that the case will be dropped altogether as soon as an interview has been conducted.

Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime in Sweden. This is all about interviewing him. That process has dragged out for years, to the point where a UN human rights panel has raised protests.

Before leaving Sweden, Assange cooperated fully with Swedish authorities. Everybody was OK with him leaving Sweden for the UK. The entire case has already been dropped by Swedish prosecutors once – but re-opened by a prosecutor specialized in “development of sex crime charges”.

Assange does not want to go to Sweden, as he fears he will be extradited from there to the US and charged for e.g. the leaked embassy cables. (Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who provided Wikileaks with this material has already been sentenced to 35 years in US prison.) The risk for extradition is, however, at least as substantial in the UK as in Sweden.

My speculation is that Sweden, the UK, and the US are rather satisfied having Julian Assange confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London – where his actions are rather restricted. So, sadly I think this affair will drag out in time even more.

/ HAX

2

Possible new developments in the Sweden vs. Assange case

By on June 23, 2016 in affairs, Assange, Manning, Sweden, UK, US, Wikileaks

There might be a new attempt by Swedish prosecutors to interview Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange.

Assange has been stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than four years – seeking refuge after the UK legal system decided that he should be extradited to Sweden, where he is wanted to be heard about alleged sex crimes.

The reason Assange gives for not wanting to go to Sweden is that he suspect Swedish authorities might extradite him to the U.S. – where a grand jury is looking into the Wikileaks publication of sensitive and embarrassing leaked embassy cables and war diaries. (You should keep in mind that whistleblower Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in U.S. prison for handing this material over to Wikileaks.)

For years Swedish prosecutors refused to go to London to interview Assange at all. Then, for some years now, the question has been in administrative limbo. (Swedish authorities have sent requests with terms that they knew could not be accepted by Ecuador. And they have sent requests with so short a notice that an interview has been impossible to arrange.)

It’s a mess. And the Swedish allegations about sexual misconduct are very thin. Assange hasn’t even been formally charged. This is all about interviewing him.

I would not be surprised if this new attempt to interview Assange also fails. The case against Assange is so thin that it will probably be dropped altogether after another interview. But U.S., British and Swedish authorities seems to be content with having Assange locked up in a small South American embassy in London – where his freedom of action is rather restricted.

/ HAX

The Guardian: Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy »

1

Embarrassed German intelligence official trying to discredit Snowden

By on June 10, 2016 in Big Brother, BND, Democracy, Germany, NSA, Snowden, Sweden

German intelligence mandarin Hans-Georg Maassen of the Verfassungsschutz has told the Bundestag’s NSA committee that it is “highly plausible” that whistleblower Edward Snowden is a Russian spy.

Obviously, it is very hard if at all possible to know if anyone is a Russian spy. There are even speculations about Chancellor Merkel (who is of East-German descent). But speculations are just speculations.

And when it comes to Maassen, he has some pretty strong incentives to smear Snowden — as the whistleblower’s revelations have left German intelligence with egg on its face.

One should consider the fact that Edward Snowden did not choose Russia as his refuge. The reason he is stuck there is that US authorities had revoked  his passport, stranding him in Moscow when in transit. And because all relevant western countries (including Germany) have refused him sanctuary / asylum.

If the German government were to let him into the country, Snowden could be in Berlin pretty quickly. But somehow, I presume Mr. Maassen wouldn’t be all too happy about that.

For the rest of us, it would be of great value and importance to have the whistleblower out of Russia and cooperating with western democratic oversight bodies, e.g. the Bundestag’s NSA committee.

/ HAX

Link: Verfassungsschutz­chef hält russische Agententätigkeit Snowdens für plausibel »

2

Next step in EU court case on Data Retention will be July 19

By on April 13, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden, UK

Very little has been known or reported from yesterday’s hearing on data retention in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The hearing was conducted as a part of British and Swedish cases – arguing that data retention in the respective countries should end, as a consequence of the ECJ ruling in 2014 overthrowing the EU Data Retention Directive.

As data retention is found to be in breach of human rights on an EU level, the same should apply on a national level – the argument goes.

I will try to find out more about yesterday’s hearing. And if you find any links, please post them in the comments to this blog post.

The next step in this affair is said to be the Advocate Generals recommendation to the court – to be delivered July 19. (Normally the ECJ will follow this recommendation. But the process is slow, taking several months more.)

/ HAX

2

Fierce legal battle over data retention in Sweden

By on April 8, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden

There is a rather interesting legal battle concerning data retention going on in Sweden. Parties are the ISP Bahnhof and the government oversight authority Post- & Telestyrelsen (PTS).

Two years ago, to the day, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU data retention directive — stating that it is in violation of human rights, especially the right to privacy.

However, in Sweden data retention continues — under a cross-party political consensus. This is to be tried in the ECJ, but is still an open issue.

Meanwhile, Swedish police (and other authorities) are using data retention to demand information about Internet users and their activities from the ISPs.

Referring to the ECJ verdict, the ISP Bahnhof, has refused to share information about minor crimes with the police. After all, data retention was supposed to be about terrorism and other serious criminal activities.

To share information from data retention, Bahnhof requires that the police confirm that it will only be used for investigating serious crimes according to relevant Swedish legal definitions. And Bahnhof demands this information from the police in writing.

The police is not happy about this. Not at all. So it has asked PTS to investigate what can be done. This leading to PTS slamming Bahnhof with a penalty of five million Swedish kronor (some 550.000 euros) if not compliant.

Now, we shall remember that there still is an open case about Swedish data retention in the ECJ. Also, a Swedish administrative court has asked the ECJ for guidance when it comes to the Bahnhof case.

This has lead Bahnhof to ask the Stockholm lower administrative court (Förvaltningsrätten) for inhibition of the PTS decision concerning the fines mentioned above.

Now, this court has granted Bahnhof inhibition — until it has reached a final verdict after careful investigation in the wider context of data retention. However, PTS still can appeal against the inhibition. If so, the case will move up the three-tier Swedish administrative court system.

The bottom line is that a relatively small ISP — backed up by the first ECJ ruling — is prepared to take a fight against the government on data retention. And that the Swedish government is trying to circumvent the ECJ verdict, to maintain mass surveillance.

This is a story to be continued.

/ HAX

Disclaimer: The 5:th of July-foundation, running this blog, is the VPN provider for Bahnhof (and others). Bahnhofs lawyer is also a member of the board of the 5:th of July foundation.

1

Pirate Bay in court in Sweden, once again

By on March 21, 2016 in Copyright, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Sweden, TPB

Today Svea Hovrätt (a regional court in the Swedish three-level court system) began the case about the domain names piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se. The government (represented by public prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad) is making its’ case to seize the two domains. The case also concerns the domain name administrator – Stiftelsen för internetinfrastruktur (IIS) – as a possible accomplice to copyright infringements.

Last spring the district court of Stockholm decided that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij no longer has the right to the domain names. However, it did not seize them for the government, but left them in the care of IIS. Nor did it find that IIS had been part of criminal activities.

An interesting point is if a domain name can be deemed to be a tool for criminal activities — or if it’s just a name, an address.

The trial will go on for two days and a verdict will be read in a few weeks time.

Link to a Swedish IDG article about the case »

/ HAX

0