Police should have “more say in the EU policy-making process,” says Swedish government

Topic
Country/Region

A “non-paper” circulated in the Council of the EU by the Swedish government in early June calls for “a fundamental change in perspective” in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, arguing that too many proposals are “watered down” by fundamental rights considerations.

Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.


Image: A. Currell, CC BY-NC 2.0


“New SecEUrity Package”

The awkwardly-titled “New SecEUrity Package” (pdf) proposes a four-pronged approach to “bring about a fundamental change of perspectives in EU efforts to fight organised crime and terrorism.”

This would involve setting up “adequate EU institutional working methods”; “Follow the money”; “Going Dark – Access to digital data”; and “Making the most of operational support.”

On the third topic the EU has already made substantial progress, with the “Going Dark” working group recently publishing a set of more than 40 recommendations to ensure law enforcement authorities have access to digital data, including by breaking encryption and reintroducing mass telecommunications surveillance.

“Imbalance of interests”

The document includes statements that many are likely to find controversial, if not entirely surprising:

“…proposals with crime fighting purposes are too often watered down during the legislative process in the name of the imbalance of interests related to fundamental rights (including the right to privacy) and distrust towards law enforcement agencies.”

It continues (emphasis in original):

“The current political discourse contributes to maintaining an imbalance between different legitimate interests, such as the protection of privacy on the one hand, and the need of access to data for law enforcement purposes on the other. Law enforcement agencies and other actors focusing on victims’ rights and crime prevention need to have a stronger say in the EU policy making process.”

The section closes by arguing:

“Security is not in opposition to fundamental rights. On the contrary, the right to safety is a fundamental right. Personal safety is a top of citizens’ priorities and should be at the top of policy makers’ agendas.”

Data access “without further delimitation”

Writing about the “non-paper” for the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, the journalist Staffan Dahllöf notes that the Swedish government “has kept a low profile on controversial chat control proposal – the ability to break encrypted content on phones and computers to access child pornography. The government has appeared cautious and thoughtful.”

In reality, noted Dahllöf, who also has a piece on the Swedish proposals published today in EUobserver:

 “Sweden has actively pushed for the monitoring of all data communications. The proposal on chat control is one of several examples. There are several more. No specific references are made to the need to combat child pornography. The need of access is motivated by a desire to broadly combat crime and terrorism without further delimitation.”

He closed his piece in Svenska Dagbladet with two key questions:

“Is this something the Swedish public should know about?

And: Has the Swedish Parliament informed?”

As the journalist notes in his piece for EUobserver:

“…the government's non-paper now seeks to downplay the aspects of fundamental rights against the efficiency of police co-operation, an initiative not known to the public at large, nor being discussed by the parliamentary EU-committee in Stockholm.”

In this context, eyebrows may be raised at the recent commitment of the European Council to “strengthen our democratic resilience, including by deepening citizen engagement” over the next five years. It remains to be seen what the Council of the EU makes of the Swedish proposals.

Documentation

Our work is only possible with your support.
Become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.

 

Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.

Report error