Advanced

Försvaret av den svenska datalagringen: En koherensanalys av den fortsatta datalagringens rättfärdigande

Olsson, Micael LU (2016) STVM25 20161
Department of Political Science
Abstract
The Swedish implementation of the EU's Data Retention Directive, entailing mandatory retention of electronic communications data concerning all individuals for the purpose of law enforcement, was passed in 2012. In 2014 the directive was ruled invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the basis of its alleged infringements on fundamental rights. Implementations of the directive were then revoked in many nations, largely based on the court decision and those rights. Swedish telecommunications companies ceased their retention of data until the Swedish government, referring to an enquiry made by a former chief of police, claimed that the directive is still active. The enquiry was criticized partly because it was said to provide... (More)
The Swedish implementation of the EU's Data Retention Directive, entailing mandatory retention of electronic communications data concerning all individuals for the purpose of law enforcement, was passed in 2012. In 2014 the directive was ruled invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the basis of its alleged infringements on fundamental rights. Implementations of the directive were then revoked in many nations, largely based on the court decision and those rights. Swedish telecommunications companies ceased their retention of data until the Swedish government, referring to an enquiry made by a former chief of police, claimed that the directive is still active. The enquiry was criticized partly because it was said to provide lacking evidence for the need for data retention. This paper argues that coherence in the justifications of state coercion is important for legitimacy. From this, argumentation analysis is used to test the coherence in the argumentation for the need for continued retention of data. The results show that the argumentation is not inconsistent but inconsequential and provides a largely varying amount of evidence for different kinds of data. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Micael LU
supervisor
organization
course
STVM25 20161
year
type
H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
subject
keywords
argumentation analysis, datalagringsutredningen, data retention directive, data retention, coherence, legitimacy
language
Swedish
id
8873406
date added to LUP
2016-11-02 17:26:37
date last changed
2016-11-02 17:26:37
@misc{8873406,
  abstract     = {The Swedish implementation of the EU's Data Retention Directive, entailing mandatory retention of electronic communications data concerning all individuals for the purpose of law enforcement, was passed in 2012. In 2014 the directive was ruled invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the basis of its alleged infringements on fundamental rights. Implementations of the directive were then revoked in many nations, largely based on the court decision and those rights. Swedish telecommunications companies ceased their retention of data until the Swedish government, referring to an enquiry made by a former chief of police, claimed that the directive is still active. The enquiry was criticized partly because it was said to provide lacking evidence for the need for data retention. This paper argues that coherence in the justifications of state coercion is important for legitimacy. From this, argumentation analysis is used to test the coherence in the argumentation for the need for continued retention of data. The results show that the argumentation is not inconsistent but inconsequential and provides a largely varying amount of evidence for different kinds of data.},
  author       = {Olsson, Micael},
  keyword      = {argumentation analysis,datalagringsutredningen,data retention directive,data retention,coherence,legitimacy},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Försvaret av den svenska datalagringen: En koherensanalys av den fortsatta datalagringens rättfärdigande},
  year         = {2016},
}