Publicity, secrecy and privacy

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a committee report on motions from the general motion period. The motions concern three things that can be said to stand partly in opposition to one another, as publicity, secrecy, and privacy have somewhat different purposes and must very often be weighed against each other.

We have a long tradition in Sweden of having public documents. One should be able to scrutinize those in power and scrutinize what is happening. But at the same time, those who fill the public documents can be individuals whose privacy we want to protect, which thus conflicts with the principle of public access. There are also certain pieces of information that we want to protect from public disclosure for various reasons – it can concern everything from national security to personal data or business agreements in companies – and in those cases, we use the secrecy act.

In that way, these three things are weighed against each other. There is a balance to be made between the need for protection, the need for transparency, and the need for access to information. It can be the case that certain information needs to be shared either for the benefit of society or for the benefit of the individual. This applies in particular to personal data in connection with the social services' work and the like.

These trade-offs are not easy, however; everyone who has ever tried to tackle them knows that. I myself had the privilege of being part of the reference group for the investigation titled Personal Data and Media Constitutional Laws. It is not simple, even if it may seem obvious. We also have the problem that the EU has a view on privacy that stands in conflict with the Swedish conception of public access.

Madam Speaker! We have here 15 different motions concerning that three-way struggle between these interests.

A motion concerns the exchange of information between authorities, that is to say that the confidentiality of personal data shall be broken between authorities in order to increase the possibility of doing something good. There is work underway there, but the motion raises the issue.

There are motions regarding increased protection for personal data, which is exactly what we looked at in Personal Data and Media Laws.

There are proposals that the principle of public access, that is, the access to documents and insight into activities, should be broadened to new activities – but also that the principle of public access should protect privacy at a higher level.

There are also proposals that one should not be able to use data for digital marketing.

Finally, there is a proposal that differs slightly from the others. It concerns increasing the transparency in – or rather, lifting the secrecy for – the so-called Stasi archive, which is more about a historical narrative than an assessment of the secrecy rules.

This is not simple. Every trade-off has its concerns and contradictions, and this requires careful thought and a careful weighing of pros and cons. There are probably no obvious answers to the question of how to draw the line, because what in some cases can be an asset can in other cases create problems. Therefore, one should proceed with a bit of caution in these matters.

Madam Speaker! I conclude that a lot is happening in this area. There are investigations into breaking secrecy between authorities, and there are questions about privacy versus the principle of public access and access to personal data. All of that is certainly well-intentioned and must be done, but while awaiting more investigations, we should handle this in such a way that we reject the proposed motions and approve the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in report KU26 Public Access, Secrecy and Privacy.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Ulrik Nilsson spoke very much in principle and well about these issues. But even though I share a good deal of his description of the problems and analysis, he does not make me refrain from initially moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1.

Madam Speaker! Last week we had the Riksdag's research day. It was largely about polarization and democratic legitimacy. I found the presentations and reflections concerning municipal processes and how to create understanding and acceptance among citizens particularly interesting.

I believe many can recognize themselves in the fact that one encounters routine statements about political choices and municipal administration, both on social media and, for that matter, at dinner parties. There appear to be very many self-evident truths, according to those who speak out, most often in the style that the politicians do not understand any better and therefore cannot make the right decisions.

Personally, Madam Speaker, I have increasingly realized, the longer I have sat in the Riksdag and been politically active, how little is actually obvious and how much is difficult. This applies, naturally, not least to the area we are now debating regarding publicity, secrecy, and privacy.

A number of major changes to the public access and secrecy legislation have occurred during this parliamentary term. Some of the changes were initiated already during the previous one, the Sledda government, but under the current government, further investigations and proposals have been made. For example, as recently as December 2025, a new secrecy-breaking provision entered into force. It enables the exchange of information between authorities for the prevention of crime. An important motive for making that change was to prevent incorrect payments, another was to be able to detect various frauds and violations.

Now in our turn, another product is expected in this area. The government is expected to present a new bill regarding a general provision in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act stating that authorities shall be able, on their own initiative, to provide non-secret information to other authorities. We Social Democrats look forward to the content of the bill but emphasize that there is more that needs to be addressed in this area.

For example, a more comprehensive review of the secrecy legislation is needed in order to prevent crime in the workplace and welfare crime. Today, far too much cheating occurs that goes undetected. Shady companies participating in procurement procedures risk undermining both the work environment and public finances. The use and regulation of AI in the public sector's control work would also need to be reviewed.

Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, this is an area where much has happened and much is difficult and complex. Last autumn, we Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, emphasized the importance of the government appointing a broad investigation to map out all recently implemented and ongoing legislative measures to assess the collective impact on personal privacy and legal certainty. It is important to remember the last part of the title of the motion report: Publicity, secrecy and privacy. Even if the purpose of the collective legislative measures is good, we cannot with certainty oversee all the possible consequences for the individual's privacy, which has also been highlighted in previous debates on these legislative proposals.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the principle of public access and tax funds. Naturally, as Ulrik Nilsson said, it is often a question of difficult choices. But for us Social Democrats, it is actually a matter of course that the principle of public access shall apply equally and unrestrictedly for all activities financed by tax funds.

We have noted that the government has presented its own proposal regarding the introduction of the principle of public access in independent schools with certain exceptions. We have also noted that there are strong economic interests that insist that it would be a serious infringement on freedom of enterprise if the principle of public access were introduced for independent schools. But we Social Democrats reason as follows: If these companies are serious about free and open competition, would it not be appropriate that they welcomed full transparency regarding activities financed by tax revenue? The same conditions should naturally apply to both municipal and independent schools.

Another common argument we have heard against the principle of public access in, for example, the activities of independent schools is that it does not apply in other transfers of tax funds, for instance if a municipality hires a construction company to build a school. But there, I would first like to point out that there is a difference between a building and the activity conducted in it. The school building is a physical construction; education is a right that we finance via tax funds. Secondly, we can actually follow up on very many parts of the municipal processes in procurement of construction companies, because the municipality is subject to the principle of public access.

I maintain that the principle of public access to documents in tax-funded activities is crucial for transparency and legitimacy in the democratic system. But I choose to again move for approval only to reservation 1, which concerns a review of the secrecy legislation.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Publicity, secrecy, and privacy are three keywords in Swedish administration and for all of us who live here in the country. There should actually be a much broader public discussion about these issues, but they constitute a kind of base that we perhaps take for granted. From time to time, however, questions arise regarding either that the laws and regulations we have make it possible to exploit the welfare system in an illegal way through easily accessible information, or that we as a society could do more, not least for children and young people who need us, if we could only make the easily accessible information even more easily accessible.

Several different investigations are currently underway. The committee therefore proposes that the motions be dismissed with reference to the proposals that are to come. My party and I have no reservations. We could have had it, but we are awaiting the upcoming proposals.

Madam Speaker! We have, at the very least, a fairly secure conviction that it is important to safeguard the individual's private and family life. In the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now Swedish law, it states that everyone has the right to their private and family life, their home, and their correspondence. But if the correspondence also includes images and films of children being subjected to sexual abuse, or if the walls of the home protect the one who uses violence against their partner, their children, or for that matter their animals, that becomes a different matter, we believe. In those cases, the police need to be involved. The County Administrative Board's animal inspector must be able to convey information, the children's schools must be made aware, and so on.

It is obviously not my intention to downplay crime that occurs in the borderland between the public and the private. What we need to do is to find the best, or at least the least bad, forms for how we can achieve what we intuitively feel is right. When it means that secrecy needs to be broken, we must do it in the best possible way.

Madam Speaker! In 2018, we received GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation, or the data protection regulation. It means that everyone who handles personal information must follow a set of rules, identical across all of Europe, based on the rights of the data subject. I remember how it was back then. I was at Chalmers at that time. It was quickly calculated that the threatening fines for any errors could amount to many millions. It was about percentages of the turnover. It didn't become much of that, but it was uneasy for a while.

With what is the basis, one can say that the development is moving very fast. That can be said for many other reasons as well. This was eight years ago – it is nothing. Since the general motion period of this parliamentary session, five months have passed. Had it been today, I would surely have written a motion about AI, publicity, secrecy, and privacy for this report. But what I know now, I did not know in September.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the enormously rapid development we see within the AI field, there are of course reasons to be both worried and cautious. The Swedish AI Commission called for simplifications of regulations and other matters, and the same is being done in other countries. The reason is that one must not end up on the notorious back side. There is of course much in that. But at the same time, it must not happen at the price of a lost integrity and a transfer of increasingly integrity-sensitive data to the big tech companies.

When cookies were introduced on websites, it was presented as if it would improve my user experience. Now it turns out that they are rather intended to scrape together as much information about us as possible to sell it to potential customers. To be honest, I am terrified when I look up the fine print regarding what I allow when I habitually accept cookies. It can involve hundreds of so-called partners, all with names completely unknown to me, who presumably process my data – my search history on the website, how much time I spend there, where I am located and much more – to sell them further. All of this is held by a few very large actors, mainly American, whose algorithms are secret.

As I said earlier: Had this been as noticed in September 2025 as it is today, I would probably have written a specific motion about it. Now I am notifying you of this here and now instead – and presumably also the tech companies, since they do scan our protocols, and the whole world. It could become a motion on this by the autumn, if the voters wish.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (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 have insight into, and thus also 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 citizens, residents and the media have access to information from the authorities and can request documents is fundamental in order to be able to maintain trust in the authorities. It is also important to be able to scrutinize the authorities in the country. At the same time, people's privacy must of course be protected, as several speakers here before have mentioned.

This always involves a balancing act between the public interest and personal privacy. But the main rule here 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 at the same time be able to protect personal privacy. We in Vänsterpartiet naturally safeguard both parts.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue for us is that resources allocated for welfare are used to, for example, improve school results and give our elderly and sick a secure care and treatment – not for large profit extractions for the owners. But almost daily we can read in the media that money intended for our common welfare, for example for the school, is instead used for the owners' luxury consumption or disappears out of the country.

Vänsterpartiet primarily wants to abolish the possibilities for companies driven by the owners' interests and not the public's best interests to conduct welfare activities. But as long as they exist, it is evident that the public's opportunities for control and oversight need to be strengthened.

Today, it is problematic that trade secrets are considered to take precedence over citizens' right to insight. For Vänsterpartiet, it is a self-evident matter that the principle of public access should apply equally and unrestrictedly for all activities financed by tax revenue.

Madam Speaker! Most of us are very digital today. Through the internet, we buy all sorts of things, keep in touch with friends, proclaim opinions, and seek answers to questions, large and small. We take part in others' lives and share our own. That is somewhat the point of social media and a good deal of the technology platforms that we use today.

Every time we do something on the internet, we leave digital footprints. Large amounts of personal data are collected in that way, as Jan Riise explained here before. When we use social media, apps, banking services, and welfare services on the various electronic devices we carry around, data is collected.

This gives those who own these data the opportunity to, for example, discern overarching patterns in our behaviors. In the best-case scenario, it can help us as a society to analyze and predict current and future behaviors in order to facilitate our everyday lives. One can coordinate and optimize resources. It is such fine concepts that are often used when introducing different digital tools.

But the same data can also be used to monitor us and to monitor our behaviors. This personal data, "big data", is sold and used, among other things, by companies to target advertisements to potential consumers. One can call it surveillance-based advertising. It is digital marketing that, with the help of tracking and profiling, is targeted at individuals or smaller groups of consumers. The surveillance-based advertising follows the consumers between different websites and apps instead of, like other targeted advertising, being placed in a carefully selected context. That is the difference.

Madam Speaker! Digitalization means that the protection of personal privacy is faced with new challenges. We in Vänsterpartiet are of course not against digitalization in itself, but we believe that the processes must occur in a different way that simultaneously safeguards personal privacy.

The intensive digital marketing and the way personal data is collected raise questions about how marketing can be better controlled and how the protection of personal privacy can be ensured and strengthened.

The fact that many social media platforms, apps, and websites are based in countries outside the EU means that the possibilities for control and other measures are diminished. We believe that the government nevertheless has a great responsibility to handle the problems that arise and a responsibility to act to strengthen individuals' privacy against the big tech giants.

In recent years, a large number of cases of personal data leaks have been reported. This concerns, for example, Facebook, which leaked data to other platforms and companies. It concerns authorities that leaked sensitive information to companies. It concerns security flaws in social media platforms and apps aimed at school students. It concerns authorities' websites that, for example, send IP addresses to Google. This should not be able to happen.

All operations must follow the data protection rules that exist when processing personal data. This applies regardless of whether it is a public authority, a private company, an association, or any other type of operation. The data protection rules are based on human rights.

It is about all people's right to respect for private and family life and protection of their personal data. It is serious when these are leaked. Authorities and companies that have experienced this, whether intentionally or unintentionally, need to report it to a specific authority, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, abbreviated as IMY. It is then classified as a personal data breach.

It can, as has been said, be unintentional, but it can still lead to a loss or change of personal data. It can also lead to accidentally disclosing sensitive personal data. This constitutes a risk. It can involve people who have been registered in different ways, and it can have serious consequences.

We can see that people have suffered economic damage. One can fall victim to identity theft, which unfortunately is becoming increasingly common, fraud or malicious spreading of rumors, something that can also be very unpleasant.

We believe that the protection must be strengthened. The authority Imy has a broad mandate when it comes to exercising supervision and guiding users in data protection regulations to prevent incidents that become harmful to the individual.

We consider that these data must receive stronger protection. I therefore wish to move for the approval of our reservation number 4, which concerns precisely personal privacy and digital marketing.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Most of us sitting here and those following the debate from home have one thing in common: We now carry our entire lives in our pockets. In our phones are our banking matters, our contacts with healthcare, and our children's schooling.

Digitalization is fantastic. It saves time, and it allows us to live throughout the country and still receive full service. But there is a downside to digitalization that we in the Center Party believe is talked about far too little. It is about power.

Who has the power over our information? When the state, authorities, or municipalities collect data about us, they often do so to help – so that taxes are correct or so that you receive the right care. But as technology rushes forward, we have reached a situation where the individual human being has ended up at a significant disadvantage.

Madam Speaker! It feels a bit as if we have given away the keys to our digital home without really knowing who is going in and out and who is rummaging through our drawers.

Centerpartiet therefore has a proposal for how we should take back control. A first important step would be a proper investigation that examines how we can give the power back to the citizen. We do not want to stop development, but on the contrary. But we want order and clarity, and it actually boils down to three simple things.

Firstly: A law degree should not be required to understand what the authorities do with one's data. As a citizen, you should easily be able to see: Who has my information? Why do they have it? And who have they shared it with? Transparency shall be the rule, not a complicated exception.

Secondly: The Centre Party often and gladly speaks about property rights when it comes to forest and land. But we must also start talking about the property rights to our own information. If the state absolutely does not need a piece of information to carry out its mission, you should also have the right to clearly say no.

Thirdly: We see how cyberattacks and digital espionage are increasing. Collecting everything about everyone in one place without rock-solid control is asking for problems. We need to ensure that privacy is built into the systems from the very beginning and is not something one tries to glue on afterwards.

Madam Speaker! It is often said that he who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear, or that he who has clean flour in the bag does not need to be afraid. That, friends, is a dangerous reasoning. Privacy is not something one has because one is a criminal; privacy is something one has because one is human. It is a matter of freedom. If we are to maintain trust in public Sweden, we must much more clearly demonstrate that we respect this boundary.

We in the Center Party want to build a digital state that is efficient but, above all, is fair and stands on the side of the citizen. We want to see a public sector where technology serves the human being – not one where the human being becomes a product for the technology.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

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