Datalagringsdirektivet kan ge internetskatt

Under den här mandatperioden blir det ingen trafikdatalagring, men nästa period väcks frågan igen. Bodström har redan talat om en skyddstid som är längre än sex månader, och med en vänsterregering kan det bli en kraftig överimplementering av direktivet. Om det dessutom är internetanvändarna som tvingas betala lagringen i form av dyrare telefon- och internetabonnemang har vi i praktiken en dold skatt på elektronisk kommunikation. Eller en internetskatt, som jag kallar det på Svenska Dagbladets debattsida.

Nya lagar och EU-direktiv kommer att medföra stora kostnader för internetleverantörer, och därmed för internetanvändarna. Om exempelvis EU:s datalagringsdirektiv införs på fel sätt kan internetanvändarna via abonnemangsavgiften tvingas finansiera den lagring av trafikdata som polisen anser sig behöva i sin verksamhet.

I praktiken handlar det om en dold internetskatt. Regeringen bör förhindra denna internetskatt och slå fast principen om att staten betalar kostnaderna för sin egen verksamhet.

Svenska Dagbladet

Uppdatering:
Bodström är ärlig med att han helhjärtat stödjer idén om att masslagra information medborgarnas e-mail, telefonsamtal och ip-nummer. Det som oroar är att han redan nu börjar förbereda sig för en ändamålsglidning. Direktivet, som tillkom efter bombdådet i Madrid, beskrevs då som ett verktyg mot terrorism och grov brottslighet. Nu pratar Bodström om att det här är information som “var och varannan” brottsutredning skulle behöva använda sig av.

6 thoughts on “Datalagringsdirektivet kan ge internetskatt

  1. On the point of stating the obvious:

    Naturally it is going to be the users who pay for being monitored on the net. Who else is there to pay? If one think that the ISP will take the money from its shareholders turnout, one is simply being naive. Nor will Bodström pay for it from his law firm revenues.

    One question stands though: How does Mr. Sigfrid see an implementation of the data-storage directive, where the user/citizen is not to pay? He writes:

    ‘Om exempelvis EU:s datalagringsdirektiv införs på fel sätt kan internetanvändarna via abonnemangsavgiften tvingas finansiera den lagring av trafikdata som polisen anser sig behöva i sin verksamhet.’

    Please explain to me the ‘right’ way to adapt the directive then.

  2. @Mollemand

    There’s a difference between the user paying a higher subscription fee and the tax payers financing the data storage, just as the tax payers finance other police work.

  3. True, my bad.

    I didn’t get the question from your post: Internet-user vs tax-payed. Your position is quite clear after reading the whole DvD article.

    Sorry, please disregard my former reply.

    Just out of curiosity though:
    When disregarding what is ‘fair’, which model would you expect to become the most expensive for the end-user?

    – The direct-payed through subscription, when nearly every household has got an internet connection?

    or:

    – The tax-payed, and thus more administration heavy model, where the free marked is disrupted, since you will pay the same regardless of which ISP you choose?

  4. @ Mollemand

    Don’t expect a reply from Sigfrid. He will vote on whatever Fredrik Reinfeldt tells him to vote on. Mr. Sigfrid is a prostitute and not a liberal, he’ll do what anyone tells him to do!

  5. Huh, det är ju mest BS egentligen. Finns ingen operatör som vill höja priserna och därmed riskera att tappa kunder till en konkurrent.

    Det är därför som dom jobbar mer pro-aktivt, i alla fall här i Sverige, sen kan man väl tycka att inte det är tillräckligt jämfört med ett par andra länder, men så fort innehålls leverantörerna fattar kreatörens bästa så blir det likadant här.

  6. @Snuskuf:

    I had the pleasure to speak with Mr. Sigfrid informally after the ‘Nät och Samtal’ seminar in Juliagruppen. This is historically prior to the FRA 2.1 vote. When I asked him about FRA, he was very humble, and said that it was the media that had put him on the high horse of morality – he was merely one of many FRA skeptics.

    His biggest hang on the vote was that he failed to see the threat picture that would legitimize such a harsh response; and that the whole process of being battered into submission was against his democratic ideals. (My interpretation of his words).

    He never led me on to believe that he was the champion of citizens privacy – in fact he disputed it. That is why I cannot find disappointment in him with the FRA 2.1 vote. I was never in doubt that he would vote ‘yes’ on a FRA version that he could find acceptable – though inappropriate – in order to compromise for his other political beliefs.

    Thus, I have a hard time seeing Karl as a betrayer of trust. In my mind his biggest character flaw is that he is with moderaterna. That is why I keep battering his politics. I have the biggest respect for Karls’ integrity – both as a person, and as a politician.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s