Biometrics in crime fighting
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the use of biometrics in crime fighting. M considers biometrics to be a powerful tool for identifying perpetrators in gang environments and in serious sexual offenses 1, and that the government's proposal provides a predictable regulatory framework 1. S considers that the police should be allowed to use real-time registers for facial recognition 2. C considers that the government's proposition is good 3, that it is reasonable to compare data with the Swedish Migration Agency's registers in cases of serious crime 3 and that DNA-based genealogical research is reasonable in cases of murder 3. SD considers that the government should allow the use of the Swedish Migration Agency's registers in all offenses where imprisonment may follow. KD considers that it is justified to collect biometric data even for young people under 15 years of age 4. V considers that automated comparison in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers threatens personal privacy 5, that the government's proposal is disproportionate 5 and that it is uncertain how the Convention on the Rights of the Child is taken into account 5. V considers, however, that current legislation is outdated 5 and that it is reasonable to use registers in more serious crimes when guarantees exist 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Madam Speaker! We shall now debate the Committee on Justice's report in connection with the Government's bill Biometrics in Crime Fighting.
The use of biometrics in crime fighting is often of decisive importance in order to be able to identify and prosecute persons who have committed crimes. This applies to crimes in the gang environment, where witnesses and crime victims refrain from participating in crime investigations for fear of being subjected to various forms of reprisals. But biometric data is also of great importance in the investigation of, for example, serious sexual crimes, such as rape or murder, where a suspected perpetrator otherwise could not have been identified.
The technical possibilities to identify suspects using biometrics have developed rapidly in recent years, and biometrics is now a powerful and effective tool in crime fighting. At the same time, the regulatory framework governing this area has not undergone any major review. It is simply not adapted to today's conditions.
The proposals in the bill aim to significantly increase the police's ability to solve crimes by using biometrics as a tool. At the same time, careful considerations are made regarding how individuals' privacy is to be protected. This is particularly important in the parts where the police are given the opportunity to use databases where persons who have not been suspected of crimes appear, such as the Swedish Migration Agency's registers and kinship databases. I will return to that.
In the bill, it is proposed that biometric data, for example fingerprints and DNA samples, shall be able to be taken from suspects and convicted persons to a greater extent than today. It shall also be possible to take voice samples and handwriting samples from those who are reasonably suspected of a crime.
The Government proposes a uniform regulation which means that biometric data shall be taken from those who are reasonably suspected of a crime where imprisonment is in the range of penalties, instead of as today, where an assessment needs to be made as to whether imprisonment can follow from the concrete crime. This provides a regulatory framework that becomes more predictable and easier to apply.
Furthermore, it shall become mandatory to take a DNA sample, fingerprints, and facial photographs of the person who is detained or remanded in custody for a crime. All of this is expected to collectively lead to biometric data being collected in more cases.
Madam Speaker! In order to be able to investigate serious crime, the government further proposes that the police shall, under certain conditions, be granted access to the Swedish Migration Agency's registers to perform automated biometric comparisons of fingerprints and facial images of suspected perpetrators. This enables the use of fingerprints or an image of an unidentified perpetrator to search against data in the register in the future.
The Swedish Migration Agency's register contains personal data on a very large number of people, the vast majority of whom have not been suspected of or have committed crimes. This therefore necessitates a restrictiveness in how searches can be conducted in this register. For that reason, the government proposes that it should be possible to make biometric comparisons with data in the Swedish Migration Agency's register in cases of crimes where imprisonment of at least two years is prescribed.
Two reservations concern this proposal. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want, in a joint reservation, that the Riksdag should reject the bill in the part concerning that it should be permitted for the police to conduct searches in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. Sverigedemokraterna want, in their reservation, that the threshold for when it should be permitted to search in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers should be set lower.
Based on a careful balance between the need for protection of personal privacy and efficiency in crime fighting, the Moderaterna and the government argue that it is an appropriate balance to set the limit at crimes where imprisonment of at least two years is prescribed. This means, Madam Speaker, that the Swedish Migration Agency's registers can be used to search for persons in connection with, for example, murder or other serious violent crimes, serious weapons crimes, serious drug crimes, and serious sexual crimes such as rape.
The Government also proposes that DNA-based genealogy shall be permitted during preliminary investigations of murder and serious rape. It was through that method that the police in 2020 succeeded in solving the so-called double murder in Linköping which was committed in 2004. The method has not been used by the Police Authority since then, because the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection has found that the method involves processing personal data in several respects in violation of the law. In the bill, a regulation in law is now proposed regarding when the method may be used for crime-fighting purposes.
Even when it concerns kinship databases, comparisons are made with a very large number of people, the vast majority of whom have not committed any crimes. It is therefore a very privacy-sensitive method that should be limited to a few very serious types of crimes. The method shall be allowed to be used when other, less intrusive measures are not sufficient. In practice, the use is also limited by the fact that DNA traces of good quality are needed in order to be able to make such comparisons, as well as by the fact that the method is costly and resource-intensive.
The genealogy method will therefore be used in a few cases, but in these specific cases, it can be completely decisive for solving serious crimes that would otherwise have remained unsolved.
There is also a reservation from the Social Democrats regarding the ability to use the registers in real-time to find suspected persons through real-time camera surveillance with facial recognition. The Government appointed a fast-track investigation last year which has investigated the prerequisites for this, and the investigator has submitted proposals on how this could become possible. The investigation has been referred, and the matter is now being prepared at the Government Offices. We look forward to the Government's response.
Madam Speaker! I welcome that the Social Democrats are now embracing powerful tools for crime fighting. But I note that it is only when Sweden got a Moderate Minister of Justice and a government with clear support in the Riksdag that a necessary reorganization of the justice policy has been able to be implemented.
Madam Speaker! When the Riksdag stands behind the government's bill on biometrics in crime fighting, further important steps are taken towards a safer and more secure Sweden. More crimes will be solved, and more murderers, gang criminals, and rapists will be able to be put behind bars. Society can thus be better protected from dangerous perpetrators.
Petter Löberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 5 in the report.
I also want to very briefly try to highlight how we reason in the matter, especially regarding the use of a biometric register for real-time camera surveillance with facial recognition.
We believe that the law enforcement authorities should have exactly the tools they need to meet the challenges that exist in society, and that is also what we believed during our eight years in government. In light of a comment from the previous speaker, I want to say that we did not yield an inch from what was required and needed to be done. Historically large changes within criminal law were implemented during eight years, mostly with a broad majority in the chamber and mostly in consensus across the block boundary. Historically large investments were made. Never before have so many extra resources been invested in the police, the Prosecution Authority, and the Prison and Probation Service as during the eight years preceding the reorganization that you claim has occurred – it is false history, quite simply. We will probably have reason to return to this.
But back to the subject. The authorities must have the tools they need, and one can also say on good grounds that many of the tools they have received, secret coercive measures and others, have contributed to what we can see today: a clear trend break when it comes to shootings, not least shootings with a fatal outcome. Last year we saw a very clear decline, and the first two months of this year we can – to take it literally, as it is so beautifully called – see a further dramatic reduction in the number of shootings.
But we must not rest on our laurels with this. The shootings risk increasing again in an instant, and the crime can also take other forms. There are also other challenges.
The police themselves see the tools they have received over the last ten years as incredibly valuable, together with other work regarding crime clearance but also naturally the resource reinforcements – new police trainings and significantly more police officers at the agency.
But we are not satisfied; we also want to look at the issue of biometrics. Here, new technological advances naturally offer opportunities and potential improvements regarding criminal investigations and thus public safety.
We believe that the Swedish Police Authority should be given the opportunity to use registers in real time to identify suspects. This could involve facial recognition, not least in places where young people are recruited, as well as at airports and railway stations. It is about arresting and prosecuting, naturally, but also about planned crimes being able to be prevented, which is of course even more important.
In the current situation, there are extensive deficiencies in the legislation in this area, and we need to have a new infrastructure in place regarding these issues in order to be able to take advantage of the new systems in a legally secure manner. Our announcement to the government is about getting a legislative proposal achieved that the government can return to the Riksdag with.
Generally speaking, real-time surveillance with cameras towards, for example, open drug scenes or unsafe places, in combination with, for example, foot-patrolling police, is an immensely powerful tool. There is as much international research as there is that shows this works when society needs to take control over places where control has been lost.
This should, of course, be done in parallel with our consideration of the ethical and legal implications of extensive surveillance measures. As always when it concerns such tools, there are naturally risks to personal privacy. We have long demanded a comprehensive review of, for example, secret coercive measures and other privacy-infringing measures that society has introduced, so that we can see the whole picture. I have received information indicating that such a review is underway, and that is, of course, extremely pleasing.
Sometimes we need legislators, as I have said many times here, to take a few steps back and look at the decisions we have made here in the chamber, squint a little bit and see what the picture actually looks like. Then one can sometimes see the outlines of things that perhaps were not desirable.
But I shall, for the sake of clarity, be very clear. We Social Democrats will not yield an inch when it comes to solving these social problems, which eat into the body of society and have held us hostage. With repressiveness, but with the precision that is needed, we will manage this. But to an even greater extent, as Anna Wallentheim notably emphasized in an earlier post here today, a much stronger preventive perspective is needed. The entire society needs to work together so that we can meet the challenges we face.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Madam Speaker! I am currently reading a book, a detective novel, which takes place in the neighborhoods outside the Riksdag and up in Södermalm here in Stockholm – it takes place about 130 years ago. The book is about women who were subjected to crimes but did not receive the support and commitment from either the police or the justice system that they needed and should have had. The period is described as almost lawless for women. Among other things, abortions were both illegal and unsafe. Women did not have the right to vote, and they were not allowed to become police officers.
This book was selected as the Swedish crime novel of the year 2024. It is called Döda kvinnor förlåter inte and is written by Katarina Wennstam. The period it deals with does not sound particularly enlightened.
But the book also describes something enlightened and clear-sighted, namely how dactyloscopy began to be used at this time, that is, the study of fingerprints. That is correct; fingerprints began to be used internationally as evidence in the late 1800s, and in March 1906, the Swedish police started their fingerprint register at the identification office in the detective department. It is still called to "dakta" someone when one takes a suspect's fingerprints and other traces.
Since then, other prints have been added, but also images, films, audio files, voice samples, and now even DNA traces. This is a natural development and a way for the criminal investigations to take part in the important scientific development.
Madam Speaker! Now, in a Sweden where women both have the right to vote and are allowed to be police officers, we need updated and modern legislation regarding DNA traces and other biometric traces that can be used as evidence. We in the Centre Party believe that the government's bill and the committee's report are good steps in the development and move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety. The proposals primarily mean that law enforcement authorities are given expanded opportunities to use biometrics so that more crimes can be solved, more crime victims can get clarity, and more perpetrators can be prosecuted.
But, as has been said, with new opportunities for biometric traces come also important considerations regarding personal privacy and legal certainty. In this proposal, among other things, children's biometric traces, cross-referencing with the Swedish Migration Agency's registers, and kinship databases with DNA are handled. We in Centerpartiet believe that a reasonable balance has been struck, which means that children between 15 and 17 years of age are covered by the new rules in the same way as adults, but that their young age is specifically taken into account in the proportionality assessment, but not in separate legislation. It is a good solution.
Regarding the possibilities to, in certain cases of serious crime, be able to make comparisons of facial images and fingerprints from suspected perpetrators with the Swedish Migration Agency's registers, we consider that even this is a reasonable balance, regarding both what may be compared and for which crimes and at what sentencing levels and penalty values it may occur. It is reasonable in today's society.
When it finally concerns DNA-based genealogy, one can state that it is neither in the book I am reading nor did it exist in the reality of that time. At that time, it was primarily women who were left without legal recourse after, among other things, sexual assaults, regarding both evidence for the crime itself and the consequences of it. The women of that time could only dream of the opportunities we have today. We consider it reasonable that DNA-based genealogy should be able to be used in certain specific cases and under certain conditions, in cases of murder and aggravated rape.
Thankfully, there is a better situation for most of us today than at the end of the 1800s, when the doctrine of fingerprints emerged. Therefore, updated legislation in this area is welcome in order to solve more crimes but also so that the deterrent and crime-preventing effect of the legislation shall become clearer.
Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the bill Biometrics in Crime Fighting, which means that our law enforcement agencies shall be given expanded possibilities for the use of biometrics in order to be able to solve more crimes and so that more perpetrators can be prosecuted.
When we talk about biometrics in crime fighting, we refer to fingerprints, photographs, video recordings, handwriting samples and voice samples, but not least other biological material that can undergo a DNA analysis.
The proposition means that biometric data shall be collected, registered, and used in the investigation of crimes to a greater extent than today. It also means that the police's current registers of DNA profiles, fingerprints, and physical descriptions shall be replaced by new biometric registers.
Furthermore, the proposal implies that during a preliminary investigation of certain serious crimes, biometric comparisons of facial images and fingerprints of suspected perpetrators may be made against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers of fingerprints and photographs. Finally, it is proposed that DNA-based genealogical research shall be permitted under certain conditions in cases of murder and aggravated rape.
The Sweden Democrats are naturally positive towards these changes in the legislation but argue that the government should go further than what is proposed in two of the proposals. Regarding the question of using the Swedish Migration Agency's registers of fingerprints and photographs, the proposal is that this shall only apply to crimes that have a minimum of two years in the sentencing scale or cases where it can be assumed that the crime's severity exceeds two years.
The Sweden Democrats argue that this implies an unnecessary restriction on the use of the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. Now that we are implementing these very positive changes to the legislation, there is no reason to limit ourselves. Much of the crime committed within the framework of organized crime consists of quantity crimes but also simpler forms of narcotics offenses. Furthermore, we know that for many young criminals, it begins with minor crimes before it successively transitions to a more serious form of criminality. If we catch these youths early and let law enforcement authorities set the boundaries that parents, school staff, social services, and youth leaders have failed to set, there are also crime-preventive gains with what we propose, i.e., to allow the use of the Swedish Migration Agency's registers in all offenses where imprisonment can follow the crime.
The second proposal concerns the issue of DNA-based genealogical research. Here too, the government chooses to propose an unnecessary restriction on the use of this method to investigate more crimes. The Sweden Democrats argue that the method should also be allowed to be used in cases of sexual offenses of the normal degree and in other serious crimes, i.e., in crimes for which it is likely that imprisonment of two years or more may follow. I therefore move for approval of reservation 4.
DNA-based genealogy received significant attention in connection with the tragic double murder in Linköping in 2004 finally being solved. In this case, DNA had been found, but since the perpetrator was unconvicted, there were no biometric data saved that could link the DNA traces to a specific individual. What was tried in 2020, 16 years after the murders, was to see if a match for the person's DNA could be found in a genealogy register, which they eventually succeeded in doing.
The double murder in Linköping became the first case in Sweden where DNA-based genealogical research could be used to solve a crime. The aftermath, however, was not as pleasant, as the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection concluded that the method of work did not have support in Swedish law. For as-yet-undicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, today's change in legislation is obviously a big and difficult problem, but for the privacy of crime victims and relatives of crime victims, today's change in the law will be of great benefit.
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection stated that it was not compatible with Swedish law. Therefore, we are now changing Swedish law. From and including July 1, 2025, even unconvicted murderers and rapists will have to watch out. As soon as it is possible, our law enforcement agencies will begin the work of solving many still unresolved cases.
With this bill, the Sweden Democrats and the government continue the overhaul of Swedish crime policy. We have abolished the youth discount for serious crimes, and we have doubled the minimum sentence for serious weapons offenses. We have given the police the opportunity to issue stay-away orders and visitation zones, and we have made it easier for property owners to evict criminals. Gang murderers born in Sweden are now deported. Our new forfeiture legislation gives the police the opportunity to seize criminals' luxury items and cash. It has become possible to testify anonymously, and now DNA-based genealogical research is to be allowed to be used to investigate serious crimes. This is just a selection of what has been done so far during the mandate period.
In our government, we are removing secrecy barriers between our authorities and making it possible for the Prison and Probation Service to place prisoners abroad. Before the end of the parliamentary term, we will double the sentences for gang criminals and introduce an indeterminate sentence for persons with a high probability of committing new crimes. More people shall serve their prison sentences in their home country, less consideration shall be given to ties to the country upon deportation, and the question of deportation shall always be examined in court. Gang criminals shall be deprived of their citizenship.
This is only a snapshot of what has happened so far and what will happen during the course of the mandate period. The realignment of Swedish crime policy is underway – it will happen, and we are on the right track.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! It has been said before and is worth saying again: Sweden is in a serious situation.
Gang crime and organized crime have gained a foothold in our country. It is a crime characterized by serious violent crimes in the form of fatal shootings and bombings – a crime that is largely financed by and finds nourishment in drug offenses, extensive fraud, attacks on our welfare systems, crime in the working life, extortion and various other forms of serious crime.
In the wake of these actions follow insecurity and fear, not only among crime victims but also among relatives, witnesses, and residents in properties and areas affected by the gangs' ravages. Threats and violence follow in the wake. Offenses in legal proceedings are common but are reported in very few cases. The number of unreported cases is large, which naturally affects both the prosecution of the offense itself and the police's ability to solve the underlying crimes. The result is a culture of silence where no one wants to testify, which in turn leads to an increased risk of unsolved crimes and perpetrators who can continue their ravages.
The impression is also that the judges have successively set increased requirements for evidence in criminal cases. The technical evidence carries ever greater weight and gains increased importance in the absence of witness testimony. Taken together, this places greater demands on the police and other law enforcement agencies, and it is in that perspective that the bill on biometrics should be seen.
Madam Speaker! The police authority has for a long time had the opportunity to maintain a fingerprint and physical description register. DNA technology was a revolution in itself. For a number of years now, the police have also had a DNA register which has been and is of great help. But the technical possibilities to identify persons with the help of biometrics have developed rapidly in recent times, and this is something that we shall take advantage of to increase the clearance of crimes.
Biometrics and biometric data are a powerful and effective tool with great potential. Among other things, it opens up the possibility of taking voice and handwriting samples, which can be quite important in fraud cases. As recently as last week, a conviction was reached that I perceived as groundbreaking, where a voice comparison performed by an expert speech therapist constituted a decisive piece of evidence in a trial concerning a serious crime. This is a clear indication of the need for voice samples.
Legislation for tracking and biometric data on convicted and suspected persons currently exists in separate regulations and needs to be harmonized and modernized. It is therefore why we are now introducing a new biometric register – one is proposed.
At the same time, the collection and use of biometric data for the investigation of crimes is enabled to a greater extent. We are lowering the bar slightly. Today, it is required that imprisonment must follow the crime. This is replaced by the requirement that imprisonment shall be included in the sentencing scale. It will then become significantly easier for, among others, the Swedish Police Authority when taking the samples. It will be easier to apply and more predictable.
No one has probably escaped the fact that perpetrators of serious violent crimes are becoming younger. Young people are recruited into drug trafficking and now also into carrying out shootings and bombings. Against that background – as well as the fact that young people in other crimes may have links to gang crime and organized crime – it is well-justified to include biometric data even for young people under 15 years of age. But of course, the principle of proportionality applies here, as in all other cases.
Madam Speaker! There is, as mentioned here, another biometric register that can be of great value in criminal investigations. The Swedish Migration Agency, as stated, has a register of fingerprints and facial images which obviously can contain information that can be of great help in a criminal investigation. It is not possible today to perform such searches. But according to current EU law, such data may be used to perform automatic comparisons of personal data, provided that it concerns serious crime. There are, as stated, limitations, but in certain cases it shall be permitted. Now we take advantage of that possibility. In that case, the Government draws the line at an offense that has a penalty value that can be assumed to exceed imprisonment for two years.
Last and finally, I want to mention what has also been mentioned by the previous speaker. It concerns DNA-based genealogy. As mentioned, Swedish police have used this with success in the case of a 16-year-old double murder. The crime was solved in 2020, as mentioned, thanks to kinship databases. Experiences from the USA show that this can be a possible way to solve a murder when other investigative measures are exhausted.
It is quite clear that searches in kinship databases are both privacy-sensitive as well as rather complex and resource-intensive, but this shall be allowed to be used in cases where one has exhausted the other investigative measures available. This applies primarily to what is commonly referred to as cold cases.
With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! On behalf of the Left Party, I move for the approval of reservation 1, which the Left Party and the Green Party support. We believe that the Riksdag should reject the legislative proposals in the parts concerning the permission to use automated facial and fingerprint comparison in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. It is that limitation that we want to make and that we consider important.
I believe there must be very strong reasons for us to be able to enter and use registers that are established for a completely different purpose than to function for crime fighting. If we accept that we cross these boundaries, there must be fundamental requirements for legal certainty, proportionality, and protection of personal privacy.
The government's proposal, as it is currently formulated, in our opinion goes too far by not only marking that there should be a limit – a two-year minimum sentence – but also talking about a sentencing valve. It may sound very technical and it well is. But legally, it means that one should attempt to assess the sentencing value for the specific act in question and that it should amount to at least two years of imprisonment. It thus becomes a hypothetical assessment – one plays judge in advance – which concerns the fact that there is then a high risk that the sentence could become more than two years of imprisonment. Through this, one opens up for this becoming disproportionate in relation to the intervention and how it is used.
We in Vänsterpartiet could have imagined accepting a proposal from the government if the limits of use had been marked in a clearer way by listing the most serious crimes and if they were clearly specified in a list of offenses. But when one does not do that and also has this valve, we mean that it is not the security that is desired when it comes to using the register data of immigrated persons. On the other hand, there are the limits that are important: that there must be at least two years in the sentencing scale and that a prosecutor's decision is required.
We from the Left Party's side also have reflections regarding this matter concerning children. Now, it means exactly the same rules for children who are of criminal responsibility as for adults. We think that things are swinging quite a bit. It is uncertain how consideration will be taken of the fact that it specifically concerns children. I am also thinking of the special considerations that the Convention on the Rights of the Child actually obliges us to follow. We are, therefore, hesitant there. We also have a reservation that we believe the government should return to this.
We therefore choose to vote in favor of reservation 1, but we still, of course, stand behind the text regarding the children.
Then I would almost like to justify that I can find this matter of registers and technology both triggering and enticing.
Of course, we want people to be able to solve as many crimes as possible and hold perpetrators accountable for them. It is completely obvious that the legislation we currently have is both outdated and confusing and therefore also difficult to apply. It is inconsistent with the rule of law. Therefore, we believe that, when it concerns more serious crime, it is reasonable that one should also be able to use this type of register when certain guarantees have been put in place. It is about who is allowed to make the decision and what the risk of punishment is. That then becomes the barrier so that this is not applied as broadly as possible.
I also want to emphasize that Vänsterpartiet supports that we should be able to use the DNA-based genealogical methods. Just as other speakers here have mentioned, there is a case where the police managed to solve an old double murder in Linköping through that technology. But a continuation requires a legislative change. This will probably be extremely rare. It concerns what we call cold cases, where one has failed with all other evidence securing or evidence searching. One then resorts to this as a last resort, and perhaps one succeeds in solving further serious cases.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.