Hemlig dataavläsning en relevant och genomtänkt lag?- En kritisk granskning av lagstiftningsprocessen för lag (2020:62) om hemlig dataavläsning
(2020) JURM02 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The Secret data interception law was implemented on 1 of April, 2020. The law allows law enforcement authorities, not just the security police, to gain access to information from an individuals' mobile phone and computer.
In the case of coercive measures legislation, it is important that the legislator relates to the corresponding legal principles and concepts in a correct way. This essay intends to critically examine the legislative process that led to the law (2020: 62) on secret data reading.
The research questions that this essay intends to answer are the following:
1. Has the legislature satisfactorily discussed and reasoned about the principles and concepts that are essential in the balancing process?
2. Has the legislator... (More) - The Secret data interception law was implemented on 1 of April, 2020. The law allows law enforcement authorities, not just the security police, to gain access to information from an individuals' mobile phone and computer.
In the case of coercive measures legislation, it is important that the legislator relates to the corresponding legal principles and concepts in a correct way. This essay intends to critically examine the legislative process that led to the law (2020: 62) on secret data reading.
The research questions that this essay intends to answer are the following:
1. Has the legislature satisfactorily discussed and reasoned about the principles and concepts that are essential in the balancing process?
2. Has the legislator made a correct assessment of what is included in the protection of personal integrity?
To answer these questions it is necessary to present and discuss the relevant principles and concepts that arise in coercive legislation. The relevant prin-ciples and concepts include: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimacy, the principle of suitability, the principle of necessity, the princi-ple of purpose, technology-neutral legislation and personal integrity. The principles were discussed and examined on the basis of the theory-what can be considered a correct legislative process in coercive measures legislation. Concepts and principles were then discussed on the basis of how the legisla-tor, regarding secret data reading, correlated to the presented theory.
In conclusion the essay shows that the legislator to a large extent did not conduct the necessary discussion and reasoning that the theory poses in co-ercive legislation. It is important, according to the theory, that the legislator clearly shows what beneficial effect can be achieved, which was not demon-strated to the necessary extent. Not all interests that can affect the legislation were presented and there was a lack of discussion on public interest regard-ing personal integrity. This results in that the purpose of the law cannot be achieved and hence there are shortcomings in the legislator's overall as-sessment. The need for legislation regarding communication, encryption and anonymization might be adequate. On the other hand, there is no obvious real need for the remaining data retrieval, despite the fact that some qualita-tive benefits can be discerned.
With regard to personal integrity, this essay argues that there is no uniform definition of the term. Personal integrity should instead be understood in the context in which it is actualized, which in this case is the context of coercive legislation. It is concluded that personal integrity has not been contextualized correctly. Covert data reading cannot be compared to older coercive measures, which the legislator believes. In summary, the legislator has not performed a correct overall assessment. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Lagen om hemlig dataavläsning trädde i kraft den 1 april 2020. Lagen innebär att brottsbekämpande myndigheter, utöver säkerhetspolisen, kan få tillgång till innehållet i den enskildes mobiltelefon och dator.
Särskilt vid tvångsmedelslagstiftning är det viktigt att lagstiftaren förhåller sig till de rättsliga principer och begrepp som gäller på ett korrekt vis. Denna uppsats ämnar att kritiskt granska lagstiftningsprocessen som resulterade i lag (2020:62) om hemlig dataavläsning. Frågeställningarna som arbetet ämnar besvara är följande:
1. Har lagstiftare på ett tillfredsställande vis diskuterat och resonerat kring de principer och begrepp som aktualiseras i avvägningsproces-sen?
2. Har lagstiftaren gjort en korrekt bedömning av vad... (More) - Lagen om hemlig dataavläsning trädde i kraft den 1 april 2020. Lagen innebär att brottsbekämpande myndigheter, utöver säkerhetspolisen, kan få tillgång till innehållet i den enskildes mobiltelefon och dator.
Särskilt vid tvångsmedelslagstiftning är det viktigt att lagstiftaren förhåller sig till de rättsliga principer och begrepp som gäller på ett korrekt vis. Denna uppsats ämnar att kritiskt granska lagstiftningsprocessen som resulterade i lag (2020:62) om hemlig dataavläsning. Frågeställningarna som arbetet ämnar besvara är följande:
1. Har lagstiftare på ett tillfredsställande vis diskuterat och resonerat kring de principer och begrepp som aktualiseras i avvägningsproces-sen?
2. Har lagstiftaren gjort en korrekt bedömning av vad som inbegrips i skyddet för den personliga integriteten?
För att besvara arbetets frågeställningar har uppsatsen undersökt begrepp och principer som ska tas upp vid tvångsmedelslagstiftning. De väsentliga principerna och begreppen är främst proportionalitetsprincipen, legitimitets-principen, lämplighetsprincipen, nödvändighetsprincipen, ändamålsprinci-pen, teknikneutral lagstiftning och den personliga integriteten. Dessa ska diskuteras och granskas utifrån teorin, vad som kan anses som en korrekt lagstiftningsprocess vid tvångsmedelslagstiftning. Begreppen och principerna ska därefter diskuteras utifrån hur lagstiftaren, när det gäller hemlig data-avläsning, förhållit sig till den gällande teorin.
Sammanfattningsvis visar arbetet att lagstiftaren i stor utsträckning inte ge-nomför den diskussion och det resonemang som teorin kräver vid tvångs-medelslagstiftning. Det är viktigt, enligt teorin, att lagstiftaren tydligt visar vilken nyttoeffekt som lagen kan förväntas medföra, vilket inte har varit fallet i den utsträckning som behövs. Alla intressen som kan påverkas av lagstiftning har inte kartlagts, främst finns en avsaknad av diskussion om samhällsintresset av personlig integritet. Det resulterar i att ändamålet med lagen inte kan uppnås och därmed uppstår brister i lagstiftarens helhetsbe-dömning. Behovet av lagstiftningen, vad gäller internetkommunikation vid kryptering och anonymisering, kan vara påkallad. Däremot föreligger inte ett visat reellt behov gällande de uppgifter den aktuella lagen tänkts omfatta, trots att viss kvalitativ nytta kan finnas.
Vad gäller den personliga integriteten kan arbetet visa att det inte finns en enhetlig definition av begreppet. Den personliga integriteten ska istället be-gripas i den kontext där den aktualiseras, vilket i arbetet är kontexten tvångsmedelslagstiftning. Arbetet visar att den personliga integriteten inte har kontextualiserats korrekt. Arbetet visar även att hemlig dataavläsning inte kan jämföras med äldre tvångsmedel, vilket lagstiftaren anser. Samman-fattningsvis har lagstiftaren inte genomfört en korrekt helhetsbedömning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034341
- author
- Siesjö, Axel LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Secret data reading a relevant and well-thought-out law - A critical review of the legislative process for law (2020: 62) on secret data reading
- course
- JURM02 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- straffrätt, dataavläsning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9034341
- date added to LUP
- 2021-01-25 11:11:41
- date last changed
- 2021-01-25 11:11:41
@misc{9034341,
abstract = {{The Secret data interception law was implemented on 1 of April, 2020. The law allows law enforcement authorities, not just the security police, to gain access to information from an individuals' mobile phone and computer.
In the case of coercive measures legislation, it is important that the legislator relates to the corresponding legal principles and concepts in a correct way. This essay intends to critically examine the legislative process that led to the law (2020: 62) on secret data reading.
The research questions that this essay intends to answer are the following:
1. Has the legislature satisfactorily discussed and reasoned about the principles and concepts that are essential in the balancing process?
2. Has the legislator made a correct assessment of what is included in the protection of personal integrity?
To answer these questions it is necessary to present and discuss the relevant principles and concepts that arise in coercive legislation. The relevant prin-ciples and concepts include: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimacy, the principle of suitability, the principle of necessity, the princi-ple of purpose, technology-neutral legislation and personal integrity. The principles were discussed and examined on the basis of the theory-what can be considered a correct legislative process in coercive measures legislation. Concepts and principles were then discussed on the basis of how the legisla-tor, regarding secret data reading, correlated to the presented theory.
In conclusion the essay shows that the legislator to a large extent did not conduct the necessary discussion and reasoning that the theory poses in co-ercive legislation. It is important, according to the theory, that the legislator clearly shows what beneficial effect can be achieved, which was not demon-strated to the necessary extent. Not all interests that can affect the legislation were presented and there was a lack of discussion on public interest regard-ing personal integrity. This results in that the purpose of the law cannot be achieved and hence there are shortcomings in the legislator's overall as-sessment. The need for legislation regarding communication, encryption and anonymization might be adequate. On the other hand, there is no obvious real need for the remaining data retrieval, despite the fact that some qualita-tive benefits can be discerned.
With regard to personal integrity, this essay argues that there is no uniform definition of the term. Personal integrity should instead be understood in the context in which it is actualized, which in this case is the context of coercive legislation. It is concluded that personal integrity has not been contextualized correctly. Covert data reading cannot be compared to older coercive measures, which the legislator believes. In summary, the legislator has not performed a correct overall assessment.}},
author = {{Siesjö, Axel}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Hemlig dataavläsning en relevant och genomtänkt lag?- En kritisk granskning av lagstiftningsprocessen för lag (2020:62) om hemlig dataavläsning}},
year = {{2020}},
}