After Paris – now increases the digital surveillance – Sydsvenskan

The digital surveillance will increase. Laws will be rewritten. The tolerance for intervention in personal integrity will increase.

And how should one really argue, when the police want better tools to crack encryption keys, or ask the Facebook chat, or chart surfing behavior of suspects ? We can not let terrorists hold on, undisturbed. Police and security services must be able to act in the present, to be where people are, resistance where resistance is needed.

Perhaps one can formulate any objections like this:

Yes, reasonable to trusted authorities may conduct certain digital reconnaissance.

No, it is not reasonable that they therefore allowed to monitor everything.

Yes, reasonable to relevant authorities may identify some people.

No, it is not fair to all possible authorities therefore be monitoring all.

This could to legislate. You can arrange procedures for oversight and review, excellent principles and practices to ensure that the balance is correct.

The only thing is that it will have to go fast sometimes. It will be wrong sometimes. And there are people who have darker skins that will primarily be affected by it. Additionally, if you usually pray in a mosque and not in a church, then your legal guarantees more vulnerable than, say, my thing is, I that is white and called something usual and has no theological identity.

If that sounds like a cliché to say that we now have to keep several thoughts in your head at the same time, it is because it is a cliché. But clichés are clichés for a reason: they are usually much needed and important maxims which have had to be used so much that they have become worn out.

It does not make them irrelevant, or incorrect.

The open society, all the forces that do not accept religious fundamentalism as a part of politics and society building, must defend itself. But in the process it must not go to war against itself.

The likelihood that you, the Swedish today suffer snokerier, unreasonable mapping, privacy intrusion or even åsiktsregistrering is probably greater than the risk that you will be killed in a terrorist attack .

How do we balance?

I do not know. The conversation must be conducted with cold and reflection. Our authorities must act properly. And anyone who tries to make these questions simple, binary black and white should be questioned.