The government’s plan to extend intelligence methods to combat crime without individual suspicion is a serious threat to fundamental rights — such a development does not belong in an open democracy. The government intends to open up section 10 of the Constitution in order to combat organised crime. That section safeguards the right to private life, honour, the sanctity of the home, and the confidentiality of correspondence and communications. These rights are cornerstones of democracy that protect citizens from state arbitrariness and abuse of power. Such a development does not belong in an open democracy — it is reminiscent of the surveillance measures of authoritarian states.
What is the government planning?
One of the most important and dangerous changes in the reform is the breach of privacy without case-specific justification. In other words, the police could, if they wished, use intelligence methods against individuals close to organised crime, even if the individual themselves were not under suspicion of a crime. Despite the limitations, this enables unjustified mass surveillance, as individualised suspicion or a high burden of proof is no longer required.
The right to private life and the confidentiality of communications are cornerstones of democracy.
What is dangerous is that the reform extends the application of intelligence legislation to combating crime. As the Parliamentary Ombudsman also stated, these methods were not designed for this purpose. A dystopian example of this was seen in the film The Dark Knight (2008), when Batman turned all Gotham residents’ phones into microphones in order to find the Joker.
Are the benefits worth dismantling fundamental rights?
In addition to this, it is worth considering what benefits would actually be gained from this breach of fundamental rights. A short time ago, a global joint police operation was revealed in which encrypted phones sold to criminals were in fact made by the FBI. Is it credible that organised criminals would use unencrypted calls — which the police could listen to — to handle their affairs?
When touching fundamental rights, one must carefully consider whether the benefits are worth it.
The reform is reminiscent of the EU’s CSAM regulation proposal (the proposal for a regulation on combating the sexual abuse of children online), in which real problems were approached with ineffective and risky means. Means whose consequences are either downplayed or not understood.
Why is the expedited procedure especially problematic?
Particularly questionable is that the law is intended to be enacted as urgent, without the normal two-term parliamentary process. Amending the constitution on an urgent basis should be exceptional and well-justified. Otherwise, it is important that the people can express their views on the matter at the ballot box.
Do we really want to take such a leap towards a surveillance society without appropriate public debate?
I have written more about digital rights and technology: about expanding the use of biometric identifiers in passports , about digital independence and about who decides what we talk about . Read more in my posts on technology .
Other posts
-
Chat control: parliament was right
The European Parliament rejected the extension of the chat control law. The police statistics are real, but parliament was still right — here is why.
-
Passport biometrics must stay protected
When fingerprints were added to passports, Finland created a national biometric register. Now the government wants to open it to police use.
-
Who decides what we talk about? Algorithms
Are we prepared for our conversations to be steered by foreign large corporations? There are no guarantees that algorithms would not be used deliberately.
-
Lähteelä — a gem on Kirkkonummi coast
Kirkkonummi acquired Lähteelä, a coastal recreation area. It is one of the few places on Kirkkonummi's coast accessible without a private boat - now it's permanently available to all.
