Access to documents obtained through seizure and copying during house searches
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns access to documents obtained through seizure and copying during a house search. M believes that surplus information that is not relevant to the criminal case should be able to be classified as confidential to protect privacy 1. M wants to also test previously collected information according to the new rules in order to prioritize the interest of privacy over the principle of unchanged handling 1. V agrees on the need to limit access to large amounts of information on information carriers 2. V wants, however, that older rules should apply to information collected before the law came into force to avoid retroactive legislation and legal uncertainty 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ulrik Nilsson (M)
Mr. Speaker! New technology sometimes brings new consequences. This is such a case. Admittedly, many would argue that this is nothing new and that it has already been ongoing for a long time. But what the matter is about is that the police, instead of flipping through folders and looking up papers and copying them as evidence in a criminal case today, can choose to copy a hard drive and then go through it. That naturally means that family albums and other things that one would have left alone in a house search previously, and information that is not relevant to the investigation and that one would not have taken with them before, today risk being included. It means that there can be a huge amount of information that is searchable and privacy-sensitive but which at the same time is irrelevant to the criminal case. That is what this is about. One should be able to classify the surplus information that is obtained as confidential, so that it is not generally accessible.
It is actually the very foundation. One should be able to "pinpoint" the information that is needed for the criminal case but keep the rest confidential. That is what this proposal is about. It is clear that everyone sees the problem, and there is generally agreement on the proposal. We are in agreement when it comes to the possibility of ensuring the integrity of the material that is not needed for the investigation.
There is, however, a reservation and a difference. It concerns how one views the handling of the information that has already been collected in this manner today. Should one examine whether it should be disclosed according to the new rules, which make it possible to classify it as confidential, or should one examine it according to the old rules? Both positions are fundamentally strong, and one can naturally wonder which one carries more weight. Does the privacy interest regarding the surplus information outweigh the interest in being able to disclose and audit the information?
Vänsterpartiet makes an interpretation and chooses the principle that the rule that applied when the information was collected shall be used when assessing the disclosure. The majority makes a different interpretation and says that the privacy interest here may be prioritized over the principle of unchanged handling. It is a balancing act, and there is no obvious answer. These are two clear principles that are incompatible.
I belong to those who share the assessment – and we in the majority of the KU do – that the interest of privacy is prioritized, and we therefore want to examine also the earlier information according to the new rules.
Mr. Speaker! Briefly, I would like to move for the approval of the proposal in KU's report number 33, which concerns transparency regarding documents obtained through seizure and copying during house searches.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Mr. Speaker! The previous speaker touched upon and described the matter. It is true, just as the previous speaker said, that all parties are essentially in agreement on the matter. But there was something that the previous speaker said that I nevertheless must address.
Is there any party in the Riksdag that safeguards integrity? It is the Left Party. We have a principle that seems to be becoming increasingly rare in the Riksdag. It is to listen to the Council on Legislation and not to legislate retroactively. I will return to that.
It is not only Vänsterpartiet that holds this view, but also several referral bodies. Above all, we usually uphold the Council on Legislation when it points out that there may be flaws in the legislation. I note that Tidögänget increasingly chooses to disregard the principle that they have previously upheld.
Mr. Speaker! I agree, just as all parties in the Riksdag, with the investigation's and the government's assessment that there is a need to limit access to information in a so-called information carrier that is seized, for example, during a house search. These seizures can mean that very large amounts of information become available to the law enforcement authorities. This applies, for example, when a hard drive or other so-called information carriers are seized. Among the large amount of information, there may be privacy-sensitive data about the user that should not be treated as public documents. That is also why the Left Party stands behind the proposal.
The investigation underlying the proposal suggested in its report, in contrast to the government, that transitional provisions should be introduced, meaning that the proposed exemption shall not apply to recordings from seizures or house searches that have been executed before the entry into force of the proposed changes.
According to the government's proposal, the older regulations shall only apply in the review of an appeal of a decision to reject a request to access a public document that was communicated before the entry into force.
Mr. Speaker! I can state that the government has once again chosen to proceed with a bill despite clear views from the Council on Legislation. When such objections are dismissed, it risks undermining trust in the legislative process, which is based on careful scrutiny and legal certainty.
The Council on Legislation's task is to be a support for us in the Riksdag and to ensure that laws are well-elaborated and compatible with the constitution. When its views are not taken seriously, questions are raised with me, in any case, about how robust our legislative and decision-making process actually is.
Just as the Council on Legislation considers, the Left Party believes that the transitional provisions should instead be designed so that the older provision remains applicable to a request to access a public document that has been submitted before the entry into force, regardless of whether the authority has managed to make a decision or not.
Allowing a law to have a retroactive effect in this way entails legal uncertainty. It is also for that reason that I, like several referral bodies, believe that the government should not have gone against the Council on Legislation in the way that is increasingly often done. Instead, there should have been transitional provisions which would have meant that the older wording would have continued to apply.
That is also why I choose to vote in favor of the Left Party's reservation.
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.