"Lex Nokia" getting more resistance, past pressure claimed

[Tiriol]

I don't think resurrecting an old thread (this one over alleged blackmail of the Finnish government), so I'd rather start a new one. The legislation known as Lex Nokia, which concerns corporate data security and surveillance rights over corporate employers is in a bad downward spiral: now Data Ombudsman deems that it violates privacy rights (report by Helsingin Sanomat newspaper).

Data Ombudsman: data protection bill violates communication privacy

Finland’s Data Protection Ombudsman Reijo Aarnio feels that the proposed changes in the data protection law for electronic communications - the so-called Lex Nokia - is a violation of communication privacy.
“It is a different question, if such a violation is necessary in society”, he says.
The benefits of the bill in preventing the leaking of corporate secrets are also seen as questionable.
“If someone is so short-sighted as to think that Lex Nokia will help in a situation in which corporate secrets have already been leaked, then it will fall flat. The milk is already on the floor”, Aarnio says.

He feels that the idea behind Lex Nokia is that by setting up tight data security, an employer would not have to look at e-mail sender information.

Aarnio says that the focus now should be on legal ways in which an employer might protect corporate secrets.
Aarnio says that legal means must not exceed an employer’s right to issue orders to an employee. Inspections of employee homes are not allowed, or are any other actions in which everyone with common sense knows that a line is drawn somewhere.”
One of the most important legal methods in Aarnio’s view is the right to define and classify corporate secrets.
“I doubt that Finnish organisations give everyone access to corporate secrets. Because of them, the administration has to be built in a completely new way: it is necessary to define how corporate secrets may be used, whom they can be sent to, and who must not get them. All of this is the kind of thing that a good corporate administration should have understood before.

Aarnio does not reject the proposed law out of hand.
“It is true that legal experts say that Lex Nokia gives greater authority to corporations than to officials. However, I have interpreted it in such a way that the bill would not give authority automatically, and that employers must work hard before availing themselves of their rights”, Aarnio says.

The alleged blackmail and pressure seems to have been more widespread than the alleged pressure of the Finnish government; trade unions have also come under fire, as reported by Helsingin Sanomat.

Trade Union pressured over Lex Nokia back in 2006

According to information gathered by Helsingin Sanomat, the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) presssured the Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff (AKAVA) to give its backing to the controversial amendment to the Act on Data Protection of Electronic Communications as early as in 2006.
The information also indicates that the Finnish mobile phone company Nokia was actively involved in the preparation of the so-called Lex Nokia - also known as the ”snooping law” - right from the beginning.

The AKAVA members themselves felt that they were pressured to give their blessing to the new Act by the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK) as well.
The information also shows that they had every reason to feel pressured - even threatened - particularly by EK.
Reportedly the decision to amend the Act on Data Protection of Electronic Communications had been agreed upon during a lunch that AKAVA members did not attend. The representatives of SAK, STTK, and EK were all present, as was Nokia executive Veli Sundbäck.
Subsequent meetings relating to the new Act were also attended by AKAVA members. At one of these meetings, a representative of Nokia acted as the secretary.

EK and Nokia wanted the amendment to be treated as urgent, but the plan met with resistance from AKAVA among others, and the process was suspended by more than a year.

In the fall of 2006, new preparations to enact the controversial Act were started, and an unanimous agreement was reached in the summer of 2007 by a committee involving also the representatives of the trade unions, including AKAVA.
A decisive reading of the bill is to begin in Parliament on Tuesday.
Both Nokia and EK have denied all allegations of pressure. Last Friday, Leif Fagernäs, the Director General of EK, commented in his press release that even though certain allegations of pressure have been made public, they have no foundation.
In an interview with the Finnish financial periodical Talouselämä, Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo complained that the company has been put in a completely unreasonable situation, when even a new Act has been named after Nokia.
Lex Nokia is significant for the mobile phone giant. However, it is also important for all those thousands of engineers who are on Nokia’s payroll.
On Sunday, Helsingin Sanomat could not reach any of those EK representatives who had taken part in the preparations of the controversial bill known as Lex Nokia.
The bill would amend legislation on the confidentiality of electronic communications, and would give employers the right to access information on senders and recipients of employee e-mail, if they suspect that corporate secrets are being leaked.

Helsingin Sanomat isn't the only newspaper to accuse EK of controversial pressure; Suomen Kuvalehti, a weekly news magazine, has recently reported that EK director would have put some more pressure on AKAVA later in 2007 (the news source is YLE News).

EK Director Expresses Surprise at Snooping Law Pressure Claims
published yesterday 07:27 PM, updated today 07:26 AM

The Legal Affairs Director of the Confederation of Finnish Industry, EK, reacted Monday with surprise to claims his group had pressured unions to back a law to give employers access to employees' email.

The daily Helsingin Sanomat on Monday reported that the EK had pressured the Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff, AKAVA, to give its backing to the so-called Lex Nokia law on tele-snooping.

EK Legal Affairs Director Lasse Laatunen said Monday he was amazed by the report, and noted that AKAVA itself has not accused the EK of doing so.

The so-called "Lex Nokia" is a controversial amendment to the Act on Data Protection of Electronic Communications, which if passed this month will allow companies the right to access employees' emails.

Also on Monday, the weekly news magazine Suomen Kuvalehti brought forward a strongly-worded email it said was sent by Laatunen in April 2007 to an influential AKAVA representative and an EK director with a copy forwarded to an AKAVA director. The magazine says that in the email Laatunen was pressuring AKAVA members to support the amendment and let it be understood that reluctance to support preparation of the bill would not be tolerated.

Helsingin Sanomat also reiterates its claims that mobile phone giant Nokia was actively involved in preparing the proposed legislation.

Both EK and Nokia tried to get the new law enacted in 2006. However, union opposition slowed down progress by over a year. Nokia has denied it was active in drawing up the new legislation.

The controversial bill is aimed at giving companies and organisations more rights to track internal electronic communication. Parliament begins debate on the bill on Tuesday.

YLE

The bill has already been critized on many fronts (and the political opposition is dead-set against it) and I don't think this is going to help the proponents' cause at all. Quite frankly, I'm willing to bet that the proposed legislation will be buried and maybe dug up at some later time with several changes (for example, actually allowing Finnish police officials access to the information gathered by the companies). The real question, though, is: how much can corporations and similar entities put pressure on government and policy makers before it becomes blackmailing and threat and before it actually interferes with the voters' rights?

[Vendetta]

The real question, though, is: how much can corporations and similar entities put pressure on government and policy makers before it becomes blackmailing and threat and before it actually interferes with the voters' rights?

As much as the opposition and tabloid press will let them get away with, usually.

Pretty much up until it gets turned into a rallying cry in the next election cycle and someone gets the boot because of it (and then the next lot do exactly the same thing, by and large).

[Edi]

It's still fucking bullshit, all of it. All of this opposition has not once brought a relevant argument to the table. Not fucking once. The only one where they come close is the bit about these so called communal providers bit with libraries, schools etc that may or may not give personal email addresses to people.

And then the relevant factor is if the address has been provided for personal use and not professional. In case of a school email address, the argument can be made that it is intended for school and study related email just like a work email is for use at work, not primarily for personal matters. So as such, absolute protection cannot be expected. It's a different matter with services bought primarily and/or exclusively for personal use, such as ISP based email addresses. And this goddamn legislation says nothing about those really.

This is not the kind of witch hunt the opposition morons are screaming it is. They just make the really fucking huge and immeasurably stupid assumption that all email is automatically intended to be exclusively or primarily for private, personal use. Work email just happens to be primarily for taking care of company business. A corporation is a legal person in Finland so it has rights too, the kind of ones that a social construct can be given by law. This is what the law's opponents ignore and if this thing goes to court, the corporate lawyers are going to use the court to assrape them.