A more comprehensive criminal liability for attacks on trade secrets
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M proposes that it should be punishable to disclose or exploit technical trade secrets, even for persons with legal access to them 1. M also wants to criminalize preparations for crimes, tighten penalty scales, and enable fines and damages directly in the criminal case 1. In case of suspicion of foreign power, M wants the police to be allowed to use secret coercive measures and biometric comparisons against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers 1. MP supports the bill but opposes biometric comparisons against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers as it is considered deeply offensive to personal integrity 2 3. MP argues that it means that persons without concrete suspicion of a crime are identified as potentially criminal 2 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Madam Speaker! Swedish companies and research environments must be able to protect their most important assets: their trade secrets. This is often information concerning innovation, technology, development, and security. Today, Madam Speaker, there is a gap in the law. If you have had legal access to sensitive information, for example as an employee, but then abuse that trust, it has not been punishable. This is not reasonable, and it is not sustainable. Therefore, the government now proposes that such actions should be criminalized. This applies to technical trade secrets, that is to say, the secrets that are crucial for our companies, our research, and our competitiveness.
The proposition is not only about a new penal provision but contains several important parts.
Firstly: It will be a crime to disclose or exploit technical trade secrets even for those who have had legal access to them. It closes a gap that has been open for far too long.
Secondly: It will also be a criminal offense to attempt or prepare this type of crime. The penalty scale is increased in serious cases.
Third: The person affected shall be able to request a prohibition of fines and damages directly in the criminal case.
For the fourth: If there is suspicion that a foreign power is behind it, the police shall be allowed to use secret coercive measures, for example surveillance or data retrieval, just as they are already allowed to do in cases of terrorism and other serious crimes.
Last but not least: In serious cases, the police should also be able to perform biometric comparisons, for example, to check if fingerprints or a photo from a surveillance camera are in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. It is a powerful tool to be able to identify a suspect engaged in corporate espionage on behalf of a foreign power.
Why is this so important? Well, it is important for our innovative power. Swedish companies invest enormous amounts in research and development. If others can steal the results without being punished, the willingness to invest is undermined. This proposal strengthens both the innovation climate and Sweden's competitiveness.
It is also important for our economic security. Trade secrets are today a target for both competitors and foreign powers. It is not fiction, but it is reality. This law strengthens our protection against espionage against our jobs and our ideas.
It is also important, Madam Speaker, in order to meet the threat from state-controlled activities. We know that foreign powers and states are actively trying to gain access to sensitive Swedish technology. Therefore, we must give our authorities the right tools to be able to act.
Madam Speaker! Against this background, the Green Party's reservation raises several questions. They oppose, among other things, that the police in the most serious crimes shall be allowed to make biometric comparisons against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers to identify a perpetrator. This is actually remarkable. We are talking about cases where there are, for example, fingerprints or photos and where the crime may have been commissioned by a foreign state. We know that, for example, China, Russia, and Iran are actively attacking Sweden. That in that situation tell the police that the fingerprints and the images they have may not be used for an identification because it could violate privacy is strange, especially if the information already exists with a Swedish authority that can cooperate.
This is a clear example of how the Green Party repeatedly stands in the way when we want to give society better tools against serious crime. It shows what is at stake. If the Social Democrats once again give the Green Party decisive influence over justice policy, it is precisely reforms like this one that cannot be realized.
Madam Speaker! With this bill, we strengthen the protection of Swedish technology, Swedish research, and Swedish security. We provide our authorities with the right tools to be able to meet a modern threat landscape, and we show that Sweden will never be an easy target. With this, I move for the bill to be approved.
Amanda Palmstierna (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for noting our reservation in this very important matter!
To begin with, we support the bill. Our reservation only concerns this matter of using biometric comparisons in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. We do not support that part.
The Riksdag has previously dealt with a public inquiry called Biometri – för en effektivare brottsbekämpning. The inquiry proposed that the police should be allowed to make biometric comparisons with both the passport register and the Swedish Migration Agency's register. At that time, the government chose not to proceed with the passport register but to proceed with the Swedish Migration Agency's register.
In issues such as these, it is always important to weigh crime fighting against personal privacy. That the police should be granted access to the Swedish Migration Agency's registers means that a number of persons who are or have been registered with the Swedish Migration Agency without concrete suspicion of a crime are singled out as potentially criminal. It is deeply offensive, which is the reason why we reject that part of the bill.
My question to Member of Parliament Ceimertz is: If one thought it was okay with the Swedish Migration Agency's registers in the previous bill, why did one not proceed with the passport register? It should reasonably have provided an even greater opportunity for crime fighting.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Palmstierna, for the remark and for the question!
Yes, it is true that there is a broad consensus for this bill, which is positive. There is a broad approach in the entire Swedish Riksdag to close the gap in the legislation. One can wonder why this has not happened earlier, but it is still positive that there is now a broad consensus.
We can, however, note that Miljöpartiet says no to the use of the Swedish Migration Agency's registers for biometric matches to ensure an identity when no other ways are possible. This is done on the grounds that this would be deeply offensive to the people who may be in the register. It can also be seen as a very effective way to exclude all people who are in the register from further investigation.
The reason why precisely the Swedish Migration Agency's register is very attractive in this case is that it concerns state-sponsored espionage. It is about foreign states trying to gain access to Swedish companies' trade secrets and Swedish authorities' security work. Precisely because it involves foreign states, it is in the Migration Agency's register where the opportunity to get a hit is greatest. This is also what this investigation points out.
Whenever we compare biometrics or anything else, we need to make a trade-off between privacy and efficiency. In this specific case, Madam Speaker, all referral bodies except one support the proposal. All parties in the Swedish Riksdag except one support the proposal. In total, it is therefore one party and one referral body that think this is bad. The rest think it is good, efficient, and a good way to protect Sweden.
Amanda Palmstierna (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ceimertz, for the answer!
The referral body that has raised this is the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten). It is also the authority that has the best grasp of personal privacy. We therefore believe that precisely that authority needs to carry very heavy weight in this case.
There is much in the Tidö government's policy that contributes to casting suspicion on non-criminal persons who are in the Swedish Migration Agency's registers, so I understand that this bill is completely in line with your policy. That this register should be able to be used to make comparisons with fingerprints and facial recognition so that these people are identified in this way, despite there being no suspicion of a crime, we simply think goes far too deep and harms personal integrity.
This is part of a pattern for how this government acts in this area altogether. Many people feel unwelcome in this country for various reasons and are subjected to many different types of treatment. We therefore believe that one must always take a stand on crime fighting vis-à-vis personal integrity. Each party may make its own assessment.
In this case, there are many far-reaching proposals that we consider important and stand behind. But specifically regarding this, we believe that people should not be viewed with suspicion in this way and that a Sweden of "us and them" should not be created, where certain people are singled out as criminals on the basis of where they come from.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Madam Speaker! This is in no way about casting suspicion on a certain group or certain people. This is about stopping people who, on behalf of foreign states, engage in corporate espionage in Sweden – about harming Swedish interests and Swedish security.
It is not about giving the Police Authority free access to the Swedish Migration Agency's registers so that they can comb through them. It is not about searching for people at the Swedish Migration Agency. It is about Swedish police, when they have a fingerprint or a facial image, being able to compare it with information from another Swedish authority, in this case the Swedish Migration Agency, in order to be able to verify identity when no other methods are considered sufficient, Madam Speaker. It is precisely about the fact that we want to protect privacy and take it very seriously.
But it is, exactly as Member Palmstierna says, ultimately a trade-off that must be made. How are we to prevent the gross organized crime, both that which occurs domestically in Sweden and that which, with the support of foreign powers, occurs against Sweden's security? In that trade-off, it is strange that Miljöpartiet always ends up braking and stopping when it comes to giving Swedish authorities the tools needed to protect Sweden.
I am glad that we otherwise have a broad consensus in this chamber and in the Swedish Riksdag, but it is unfortunate that Miljöpartiet is saying no once again. We must hope that it does not become a continued veto in Swedish justice policy in the future.
Amanda Palmstierna (MP)
Madam Speaker, members and listeners! Today we are debating the government's bill to strengthen the protection of trade secrets. The legislative change is intended to provide better protection against industrial espionage. The law was first formulated in the 1980s, and since then, the world has changed very much. We stand in a completely different security policy situation. There are also completely different conditions when it comes to digitalization and the risk of cyber espionage.
The bill on criminalization concerns technical trade secrets, i.e., trade secrets that are important for technological development, for innovation and for industry. It is proposed that secret and preventive coercive measures shall be allowed to be used to detect and prevent persons from disclosing technical trade secrets when there are good reasons to believe that they are acting on behalf of a foreign power.
The difficulty of identifying persons poses major problems for law enforcement authorities and complicates prosecution. There are therefore good reasons to give law enforcement authorities the opportunity for expanded collection and use of fingerprints and facial images. But when it comes to such issues, personal privacy must always carry great weight. There must be a reasonable balance between effective crime fighting and each individual's right to their personal privacy.
As you have just heard, the government proposes that a biometric comparison shall be allowed to be made against the Swedish Migration Agency's register of fingerprints and photographs. It is here that we believe one goes far too far and makes a major intrusion into privacy. In the previous public inquiry Biometri – för en effektivare brottsbekämpning, it was proposed, as I said earlier, that the police should be allowed to perform such searches in both the passport register and the Swedish Migration Agency's register. But then the government chose not to proceed with the passport register but only with the Swedish Migration Agency's register. One can ask why.
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection questions whether there is a need to be able to perform a biometric comparison of facial images and fingerprints against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers. It is always a significant infringement of personal privacy to collect and process fingerprints and facial images.
That the government gives the police access to the Swedish Migration Agency's registers means that a large number of people who are or have been registered with the Swedish Migration Agency are identified as potentially criminal. It is deeply offensive.
We support the bill in large part in all aspects, but not specifically in the part concerning the fact that biometric comparison shall be allowed against the Swedish Migration Agency's registers of fingerprints and photographs. I therefore move for the approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation number 1.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.