Publicity, secrecy and privacy

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! The report from the Committee on the Constitution being debated today concerns the public sphere, its confidentiality, and personal privacy. These are important issues that require both reflection and common sense.

Most people have a clear notion of what personal privacy means for their own part. Personal privacy is primarily not about hiding something. It is rather about having power and control over one's own person and one's private sphere.

How large the private sphere is can vary depending on cultural, ethnic, religious, or social background. It can also wisely change over time. The law enforcement policy's tough question is how one can maintain the balance between the need to fight crime and the protection of personal privacy.

How can we preserve both security and an open society? There are a few things that one must keep in mind in this. It is about the balance. How do we ensure the balance between personal privacy and crime fighting?

It concerns respect for law and order. How do we maintain it? What happens to a society when the justice system does not fulfill its function? Does it open the door for civil guards and gated communities?

Madam Speaker! I will not mince words in saying that I think these questions are difficult. But even if it is difficult, it is the task of politics to find solutions. That brings me back to this matter of the balance between privacy and crime fighting. It cannot be emphasized enough.

The question that one must ask is: Which measures against crime do the most good? It concerns us who live here, for Sweden's reputation, for entrepreneurs, for the country's economy, and for recruitments. By that, I do not mean recruitments to criminal networks, but I mean recruitments to schools, the justice system, and the police, to give a few examples.

Balance is important. I keep repeating it. It cannot be overemphasized. If we say no to effective crime-fighting tools, it will likely result in reduced safety for our residents, and as a consequence, certainly more dead or injured.

The starting point must be that society must not control citizens more than is necessary. These questions are engaging. This is noticeable, in particular, in the motions that have been written, and there I agree with several of the sponsors.

Publicity, secrecy and privacy

Several investigations are underway in many areas concerning the most pressing motions. One example of this concerns anonymity in crime fighting. Information in public documents regarding decision-makers at the police and other authorities shall, to an increased extent, be able to be anonymized.

Police and other vulnerable occupational categories, in particular those who handle cases with links to organized crime, and who are subjected to improper influence, shall be able to obtain protected information for themselves and also for their family.

Furthermore, a special investigator has been tasked with submitting proposals for improved opportunities for information exchange between law enforcement agencies.

Another proposal, which is included in the Tidö Agreement, is that the subsidy crime law should be tightened and also cover support to companies.

Furthermore, I can mention that legislation regarding attacks against police officers or other crimes that threaten the foundations of the rule of law and society must be tightened.

Regarding exactly those crimes that threaten the foundations of the rule of law and society, there are the conclusions from the Investigation on an enhanced criminal law protection for certain socially useful functions and some other criminal law issues. I believe it is from 2020 or 2021. We think that is a good starting point. But it should be supplemented with crimes directed at premises, for example social services offices, schools and defector activities.

Madam Speaker! To find a balance between crime and privacy, it is necessary to have a strong justice system that punishes criminal behavior and ensures that those who engage in illegal activities are held accountable for their actions.

It can be achieved through a series of measures, including crime fighting, courts and prison. But it is also important to realize that maintaining integrity requires more than just punishment for those who engage in criminal behavior.

It requires a commitment to ethical and moral principles that are reflected in the behavior of individuals and institutions. It includes transparency, honesty, and accountability. It is crucial for building trust in society.

Madam Speaker! Reflecting, thinking and formulating takes time. It also requires that one has taken part in what others have reflected, thought and formulated. With that, I want to say that we in Sweden shall establish that we shall be proud of our principle of public access. It is a cornerstone of our democracy. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by saying that when I debate together with the Committee on the Constitution, I realize that my speeches perhaps should have slightly higher ambitions if one looks at the historical and factual misinterpretations that we have to endure.

I really appreciate that. My colleagues in the committee explain very creditably why we have different types of positions and take historical and cultural aspects into account in a good way.

We are now considering KU's report 25 on publicity, secrecy, and privacy. I initially move for approval of reservation 1.

The previous Social Democratic government appointed an inquiry in April 2022 to enable improved opportunities for information exchange between law enforcement agencies and certain other state and municipal authorities. One main purpose of that was to enable more effective law enforcement work and that the preventive work could become better.

The new government under the leadership of Ulf Kristersson decided in January 2023 on supplementary directives to the investigation on a new main rule in OSL to facilitate the work of preventing and combating crime. It is a reasonable addition, and we look forward to what the investigator presents this autumn.

It is inevitable that in times when organized crime advances its positions in large parts of our society, a broad gathering in the Riksdag is needed to meet this. The possibility of information exchange between authorities is an important such issue. We shall, of course, safeguard the individual's privacy, but the societal development in recent years places great demands on us politicians to act.

I know myself, as a high school teacher before I entered the Riksdag, how frustrating it could often be to encounter a regulatory framework that in many cases made it harder to address the problems of young people. These are problems that, if the public sector does not act, can for example lead to active participation in criminal activity or to ending up in environments where one is exposed to such. I am convinced that within the police, social services, and the school, there is a great will to act, but the famous bottlenecks make themselves felt all too often.

That is why it is good that an investigator is reviewing the secrecy legislation, but we Social Democrats want to broaden the perspective and also look at other areas where a more comprehensive investigation could contribute. This applies, for example, to the issue of crime in the working life and the possibility of information exchange there.

Against this background, Madam Speaker, I move again for the approval of reservation 1. If any speaker exceeded the speaking time in one of the previous debates, I hope that I have balanced this now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! The principle of public access is an indispensable part of our democracy. It constitutes a guarantee for the rule of law, fair administration, and effective governance by enabling the public to gain insight into and thereby be able to monitor public activities. The principle of public access is expressed in various ways in our fundamental laws, for example in the right to freedom of expression, the freedom of communication for civil servants, and the publicity of public documents.

That we as citizens, residents and the media have access to information from the authorities and can request documents is fundamental to maintaining trust in the authorities. It is an important part of being able to scrutinize the authorities in the country. At the same time, people's privacy must, of course, also be protected.

It means that there is always a balancing act between the public sphere and personal privacy, but the main rule in Sweden has for a long time been that public documents are public and that one has a self-evident right to access them. There are also different types of secrecy protections precisely so that one can manage this balancing act and protect personal privacy. We in Vänsterpartiet naturally safeguard both parts.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, most of us are very digital today. Through the internet, we shop for all sorts of things, keep in touch with friends, proclaim opinions, and seek answers to our small and large questions. We take part in others' lives and share our own; that is somewhat the point of the technology platforms and the social media.

Every time we do something on the internet, we leave a digital footprint. Who hasn't accepted cookies out of habit? And it is certainly a bit convenient when the computer saves our login details so that we don't have to remember and type in the password every time? But all these footprints and data about what we do on the internet are collected by various actors who keep track of what we do. It could be the owner of the website we visit, your internet provider, the police, or outside hackers who keep track of what you do online.

An ever-increasing proportion of our private data, things you might actually want to keep to yourself, is currently stored on servers of enormous companies because you have chosen to disclose them in various contexts, particularly on social media and the largest platforms.

It is in the nature of social media that you share your private life. That is the very core of it. You participate openly on Facebook and Twitter on everything from world politics to funny events. You might share your pictures, show off a result from a jogging run—if you do such things—or find old friends thanks to the reach of social media. Generally speaking, these are positive aspects that enrich our lives. But the thing is that all the information you share is saved on the services' servers. Several large social media services, including Facebook, do not only save what you actively write but also log what you "like" by tracking how you use their services.

The downside of this is precisely the fact that masses of private information about you and how you use the internet and social media are stored with these providers. This has consequences. Thus, we may have, without truly knowing it, given away large parts of our private data - completely voluntarily. Right now, the debate is perhaps primarily about the platform TikTok, which has links to the Chinese state. But we must realize that all the apps we use save data with information that can be sensitive. Perhaps we need to collectively increase awareness about the data we share and with whom.

Madam Speaker! Last year, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection submitted a report on privacy and new technology in the IT field for the first time, and the authority will continue to do so every four years. This is something that we in Vänsterpartiet value, as it is important that these issues are monitored closely.

It is clear that new technology makes the data collection about each of us more extensive than we can imagine. We may have become accustomed to personalized marketing, and even though it creates a sense of unease for some, it has become a part of our digital everyday life. But Imy, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, pointed out in its report last year that even though we have become accustomed to being subject to extensive tracking online, it does not mean that the data processing is legal.

Several European authorities have also concluded that a large part of the data trade that takes place specifically in the digital advertising industry is problematic. Several authorities, in Sweden and in other EU countries, have in reviews of the digital advertising industry pointed out the large number of actors to whom our personal data is disseminated.

How many of us actually know that a visit to a website or a download of an app many times leads to our personal data being shared with 10-30 other actors and companies, without us having any relationship with them or any idea about it? The British data protection authority ICO has stated that data handling that violates data protection rules permeates the entire industry.

Madam Speaker! This area is characterized by problems that politics will need to monitor and manage moving forward, because it is difficult even for the organizations themselves to oversee who is taking part of our data. Ensuring sufficient security measures is therefore problematic, especially when sensitive or particularly privacy-sensitive personal data are involved. There is a great lack of knowledge about this.

There are clear signs that the negative consequences of the extensive data collection that occurs online have become an increasingly important issue for people in Sweden during recent years. More and more people feel concerned about how their personal data is handled, and more and more are taking measures to protect their personal data or refrain entirely from using certain services that are perceived as insecure.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the data collection carried out so far, but above all of the ongoing and upcoming, are difficult to control and oversee. In recent years, this area has been highlighted through scandals, for example, when the purchase history of several pharmacy customers was shared with Facebook. Approximately 1 million customers were affected by this.

This time, Vänsterpartiet has no own motions or reservations, but from Vänsterpartiet's side, we will carefully follow the developments regarding these issues.

Madam Speaker! I am spending the whole day here in the chamber. Earlier today, I debated a matter in the Committee on Taxation which concerned precisely the establishment of a new analysis and selection database, where the Swedish Tax Agency shall be able to access more information about us in order to ensure that inaccuracies in the population register can be rectified. It is something good, which the Left Party also supports.

But the problem with the proposal I debated earlier today was precisely that both Imy and Sveriges advokatsamfund, two quite strong referral bodies in this area, noted – unfortunately not only in this case – that no assessment regarding proportionality and the importance of preserving personal integrity had been made by the government. I therefore guess that we will have to return to these questions many more times.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

We are currently living in a time that appears very uncertain in several different ways. There are several threat pictures against our country. There are threats from outside, from foreign powers, but also threats within the country, against the security in people's everyday lives, in the form of serious organized crime which, in recent years, unfortunately has taken a step forward.

In such restless times, we need to take several powerful measures to increase our security and our safety. But when such measures are discussed, it is important to keep in mind what lies in the other balance scale. When we discuss the need for more surveillance and control to tackle serious crime, the needs for privacy, freedom, and openness must simultaneously be considered. This balance is, as the Moderate member initially touched upon, important and difficult, and we must take political positions regarding this.

The principle of public access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic system of government – that individuals, opinion leaders, and investigative journalists can not only request but also have the right to receive public documents. This right ensures that citizens can gain insight into the exercise of public power and can monitor how power is exercised. We Swedes usually highlight this principle of public access with pride, and rightly so, for it lays the foundation for free opinion formation and free debate on many different issues in society.

The principle may only be restricted if there are conflicting interests and the need to protect certain pieces of information carries more weight. Only if information is considered so worthy of protection that it requires secrecy does the interest of the public's right to insight give way. This subject was debated here in KU as recently as in January this year when we dealt with the government's bill on electricity support and what the government chose to do, namely to classify information about the electricity support as secret. This was something we in Centerpartiet opposed.

Madam Speaker! The principle of public access is, as has been said, important, as is the need to protect sensitive information. But the fact is that today's legislation often prevents authorities from working effectively for, for example, crime prevention and crime-fighting purposes, as the Social Democratic member pointed out, based on experiences from their work as a teacher. The legislation does not, in fact, allow authorities to share relevant information with one another. Today's legislation is simply not adapted to today's conditions.

As I just said, normally a far-reaching right of access applies for every citizen, who has the right to access information from different authorities. On the other hand, almost the opposite sometimes applies for the authorities themselves, which many times have highly limited possibilities to access each other's information. This is not at all expedient. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet are for a greater exchange of information between authorities, not least because it is needed in order to be able to combat the serious crime we see today.

Increased information exchange between authorities and developments in the field of technology and information simultaneously raise the issue of privacy. Privacy-sensitive information must be handled in a legally secure manner and with respect for the individual's right to privacy. It is not always an easy task to guard the individual's legal certainty and privacy while simultaneously safeguarding security and countering threats and crime. We in Centerpartiet believe that an inquiry should be appointed to look at the question of how we can make a purposeful balance between the interests when it comes to crime fighting, information management, and privacy, in order to thereby create a regulatory framework that is adapted to today's conditions and is simultaneously legally secure.

Madam Speaker! Technological development has brought about far-reaching changes in our society and resulted in that, in quite simple ways, most of us can be mapped through the digital traces we leave behind daily. The Vänsterpartiet member Jessica Wetterling spoke a lot about this. We, in fact, generously share information about our doings and non-doings. We do this by daily using various apps, which receive highly personal information about our routines, and by, when we pay for various services, using debit cards that we swipe at the subway turnstile, in the neighborhood's Icabutik, or at Systembolaget. It is then possible to track where we are and what we are doing. These digital traces are collected many times by private companies.

It is, as I mean, my Left Party colleague in KU, important that we increase awareness of this. How many of us actually read the often extensive terms of use that we have to accept to use an app or visit some site?

Madam Speaker! Finally, I thought I would mention a piece of news that has just emerged. I think it is interesting as we speak today about personal privacy. I saw, in fact, that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection is now going to audit the Moderaternas handling of personal data ahead of the election and has initiated a supervisory case for this reason. The Moderaternas collected personal data and then sent personal greetings to individuals. Apparently, video greetings were sent to private phones, I heard in my circle of acquaintances, directly from Ulf with first-name address. I was not reached by this, thank goodness – I would have thought it was a bit intrusive to receive such an SMS. I know there were those who felt that this did not feel completely comfortable. I think, in any case, it is interesting that the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection is looking into this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Public access, secrecy, and privacy are some of the constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties that we deal with in the Committee on the Constitution. Today's report contains a number of motions but also general descriptions that account for current law and ongoing investigations within the area. I particularly want to highlight our right, according to the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, to express our thoughts and opinions and provide information in writing and in radio, TV, and similar media.

There are, however, limitations with regard to the protection of an individual's personal and economic circumstances. As a counterweight lies the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act regarding the right to access public documents. The balance point lies, as some have pointed out earlier during the debate, in the promotion of democracy and the protection of the individual's private and family life.

Everyone is protected against infringements of personal integrity that occur without consent and involve surveillance or mapping of personal circumstances. Exceptions are made only to satisfy purposes that are acceptable in a democratic society and must never involve threats to the free formation of opinion. Restrictions may not be introduced on the grounds of political, religious, cultural, or other views. Registration of opinions is prohibited.

For us Christian Democrats, it is therefore important to review the publication of personal data by various search services. The publication of personal data by search services is a smorgasbord for criminals who target frauds against the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Information on who is over 70 years old and lives alone is just a click away.

The principle of public access, that everyone shall have the right to access public documents that are not subject to secrecy, is a fundamental part of Swedish democracy. But great caution and respect must also surround people's privacy when handling personal data.

Madam Speaker! This is in poor harmony with the large amount of personal data that is collected, compiled, and published in databases by search services such as Mrkoll and Ratsit. More needs to be done here to limit the publication of personal data by various search services. Such a limitation can hardly constitute a threat to the freedom of opinion but protects the individual human being.

The European Convention exists as a protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and everyone has the right to have access to collected data concerning oneself and to have them corrected. One also has the right to be forgotten.

The Swedish supervisory authority is the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, which has also been mentioned here earlier.

Through digitalization, a new market has emerged, where privacy-sensitive data via digital marketplaces such as websites, social media platforms, and search engines has become an international commodity. Within that area, an investigation is now underway regarding an internal market for digital services.

Other important areas addressed in the report are data storage, confidentiality-breaking provisions between authorities within health and medical care, and information exchange between law enforcement agencies, as well as an investigation into a payment authority that shall prevent, deter, and detect incorrect payments from the welfare systems. It is something that it is extremely important to resolve. That assignment shall be final-reported by December 31 this year so that the authority can begin its work during next year.

The report contains many and important fundamental parts, where the balance between the principle of public access and the protection of personal privacy is something we must constantly keep in mind.

I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! The report KU25 on publicity, secrecy, and privacy contains a number of considerations, and many of my colleagues have raised a good deal of them. I intended, above all, to highlight a number of proposals in connection with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, AI, which specifically concern protecting people's privacy in the digital society.

Artificial intelligence is a development that entails very great opportunities but also risks. AI will be an important tool to strengthen welfare and meet the climate challenge. Through its capacity to quickly analyze large amounts of data, AI is also expected to be able to improve and streamline healthcare and public administration in entirely new ways.

Already today, a considerable number of decisions in public administration, including agency decisions, can be made through automated routines, even though they are often based on the fact that there is also an interaction with a case officer. Regarding legal certainty, it can be said that it increases as more and more cases are handled in exactly the same way. But at the same time, the Swedish National Audit Office pointed out in a 2020 report that the documentation that in some cases accompanies the decision-making process can be difficult to access and thus contribute to poorer legal certainty.

The European Commission published a so-called white paper in February 2020 on measures to promote the development of AI and at the same time limit the potential negative aspects of increased use. Much has happened in the three years that have passed since the Commission and our own Swedish National Audit Office published these reports. Among other things, the Commission has pointed out the need for a framework with ethical guidelines for continued development where the interests of different vulnerable groups are taken into account.

Miljöpartiet has in a motion proposed that an international ethical framework for AI should be developed. The framework should be based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights and on the EU's fundamental rights and common values. Furthermore, national guidelines are needed for how we in Sweden should apply and develop AI in an ethical manner.

To create a robust coordination, we also believe that a public body with overall responsibility is needed to monitor the development of AI and human rights in cooperation with relevant authorities and actors in the business sector and society.

Discrimination must be prevented and countered. Investments are needed, partly in high-quality education for children and young people on how AI should be developed and used in an ethical and equal way, and partly in easily accessible and understandable information about this for all citizens, with a particular focus on the elderly, minority groups, and persons with disabilities.

We also want to demand transparency regarding the data used in the training of AI, how the AI system is constructed and how it functions, and that it is reported how and when AI is used. Furthermore, a legal review of the legislation regarding the issue of liability when AI is used as a decision support is needed.

Shortly, we will also take a position on whether the existing technology is sufficient to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse online without personal privacy being lost. This is what opponents of the proposed EU regulation call child control. We will return to that.

Madam Speaker! AI will shape the future, and therefore we need to steer the development of AI by ensuring that an ethical framework is applied to all AI procured with taxpayers' money, but also by prohibiting the absolute worst uses of AI. Autonomous weapons are such an example. Therefore, it is important that Sweden, within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, continues to push for an effective international ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems, which are incompatible with the requirements of international law. It is good that a common European position for safe and responsible development of AI is being developed.

The European Commission's proposal implies a three-part strategy where they want to increase public and private investments, prepare for societal changes that AI will contribute to, and guarantee an appropriate ethical and legal framework. We therefore need to create an ecosystem of trust through a regulatory framework and the EU's white paper, which points out the cornerstones: that AI shall be compatible with legislation and that AI shall fulfill ethical principles and be robust and reliable.

AI will not make the decisions for us politicians, as far as we know, but AI can come to improve the quality of the decisions. Citizens will never respect politicians who shift the blame to AI if an individual citizen is affected due to incorrect decisions.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 5 under point 7 on artificial intelligence and privacy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Publicity, secrecy, and privacy are important principles in a democracy because they contribute to maintaining openness and demanding accountability and are a protection for the individual's rights and freedoms.

Questions about secrecy and privacy are constantly alive in the public debate. These are difficult questions with difficult trade-offs. Is it right to search everyone's communication on a platform in search of a few who commit despicable pornography crimes, or do we then risk violating the rights of innocent people to privacy? Do we need to stand up for the child's right to privacy?

Where is the limit for which personal data someone should be able to access through a simple search, and how can an individual who does not want their personal information to be just a few button presses away take action? Can the police and social services cooperate to prevent young people from falling into the clutches of gang criminals, or are they hindered by secrecy from exchanging necessary information?

Above all, the latter question has received significant space in the debate during recent years. Many investigations have also been initiated. Investigations where the cooperation between authorities to, for example, safeguard the individual's legal certainty and health or the possibility of combating crime needs to be weighed against the protection of personal privacy. From the Liberals' side, we have been proactive in getting these investigations carried out. A changed perspective is needed regarding secrecy when it concerns young people in risk zones so that social services and the police can cooperate and, most preferably, collaborate to counteract the alarming trend we see where adult criminals recruit and force very young people to commit acts of gross violence. Not being able to act due to secrecy is a betrayal of these youths.

Madam Speaker! Organized crime does not only challenge our view on confidentiality and cooperation between the police, school, and social services. It also challenges the view on confidentiality in welfare systems and other public support systems, as we see that these are exploited by organized crime to finance its activities. The demands on authorities' access to information and the possibility to exchange information about individuals and companies to reduce incorrect payments are increasing.

The question of individual privacy needs to be constantly monitored when new tools are introduced. Just as voices are raised in the debate that private companies have more extensive access to personal information than before, largely due to digital technology, and that there are risks with that, for example the risk of fraud, there can also be a risk of unjustified surveillance or misuse of personal information even from the authorities' side.

The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, IMY, states in a report released recently that most Swedes feel secure with how authorities use personal data, while a third are concerned about how companies use personal data, and that half refrain from digital services because they are unsure of how the personal data will be used. IMY also states that few have knowledge of how the General Data Protection Regulation works and how an individual can actually protect their personal data. This requires, as several others have pointed out, an information effort, not least among those groups that are particularly vulnerable when it comes to fraud, for example the elderly or persons with disabilities.

Publicity, secrecy and privacy

Madam Speaker! In an open and free society, transparency and protection of personal privacy are required just as much as tools to maintain law and order. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the discussion on secrecy, privacy, and publicity is constantly ongoing and that every change is weighed and balanced from all perspectives. These are issues that affect us daily in our everyday lives, and it can affect our trust in society if we do not succeed in finding the right balance.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 23.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)