Clarification on the Swedish Covert Surveillance Act

Privacy Questions
21

Mullvad meets the criteria, your insistence otherwise is nonsensical. All I can presume is that Rethink VPN is launching soon :rofl:.

In all serious, regardless of this law any company is free to cooperate with law enforcement pretty much however they like. The only exception might be privacy concerns but they typically don’t apply in such situations.

1 Like
22

If it does, it won’t be subject to 2020:62.

(btw, the code is OSS: GitHub - serverless-proxy/serverless-proxy: HTTP to TCP proxy that deploys to Cloudflare Workers and Deno Deploy)

The part that concerns PG’s criteria for VPNs is secret logging. For everything else, feel free to create a new topic. Please stop derailing this one.

Why are you so fixated on Mullvad and think it is fair game to call me names freely just to defend them? I’m really genuinely curious. Feel free to DM me.

3 Likes
23

No one is calling you names, don’t insinuate that being the case when it isn’t. I said I find your insistence nonsensical (i.e. it doesn’t make sense to me.)

24

No. As Mullvad states, the law does not apply to VPNs:

Mullvad cannot be made subject to a duty to cooperate in connection with the enforcement of a decision authorising covert surveillance of data since VPN services are not an activity subject to a reporting obligation pursuant to Chapter 2, section 1 of the LEK.

The law only concerns secret data collection and Mullvad is not subject to it. So it is irrelevant for VPNs in Sweden.

  1. Should PG amend it’s minimum criteria for VPNs (to accomodate Swedish providers, for example).

While the example of Swedish VPNs is moot, sure, having a criteria for VPNs not to be subject to secret data collection sounds prudent.

  1. Solicit clarification from Swedish providers it today recommends (aka Mullvad). And/or solicit/consult 3p opinion/sources.

Again, see Mullvad’s explanation here:

  1. What significance does the law have for the Mullvad service?

Mullvad cannot be made subject to a duty to cooperate in connection with the enforcement of a decision authorising covert surveillance of data since VPN services are not an activity subject to a reporting obligation pursuant to Chapter 2, section 1 of the LEK.

Why aren’t VPN services regarded as an activity subject to a reporting obligation pursuant to Chapter 2, section 1 of the LEK?

The legislative history of the LEK states that VPNs can take place over a public communications network but that does not subject the party providing a VPN to a special obligation to report the activities under the LEK. It is the party providing the public communications network that is subject to the reporting obligation for this (if it is provided against payment).

This is also clear from the study on data storage and EU law (Swedish Government Official Reports 2017:75) - which was undertaken after the data storage directive was declared invalid - and the Tele2 judicial decision that the storage obligation under the LEK does not include storage of data regarding anonymisation services (i.e. VPN services) which are not activated until after internet access.

Mullvad is thus not covered by either the data storage provisions in the LEK for operations subject to a reporting obligation, or the duty to cooperate pursuant to the Covert Surveillance of Data Act.

1 Like
25

That’s what you’re saying or Mullvad is?

  • If you are, and if you have a way of contacting Mullvad, will you please do so and send them your assertion verbatim and ask them to confirm / clarify if it is correct?
  • If Mullvad is saying all that, please link me to it.

I doubt the law is irrelevant in its entirety. Happy to be proven wrong.

All they repeatedly state is (which I’m repeating for the 6th time in this thread): “no duty to co-operate”. That’s just one section of the 2020:62 Act that doesn’t apply, no? And regardless, if they did co-operate, is there a way for us (as outside observers) to know they did?

Don’t gaslight me. What is this statement[1] if not claiming I’m a fraud with sinister motives? I don’t even know you, nor have I personally attacked you or insinuated, for example, that you’re world’s greatest Swedish-Proportionality-Law fanboi.

  1. [quote=“phnx, post:21, topic:23499”]
    All I can presume is that Rethink VPN is launching soon
    [/quote] ↩︎

2 Likes
26

I’m not going to keep arguing with you since this isn’t going to be productive. It was a light-hearted joke but clearly poorly received.

1 Like
27

Thread closed before it gets even more out of hand.

5 Likes