Övervakning och integritet : en omöjlig möjlighet? En studie av de svenska riksdagspartiernas syn på förhållandet mellan övervakning och integritet 2006

Sammanfattning: There is an ongoing discussion amongst Swedish politicians about how the Swedish police will be able to handle increased organised criminality represented in the growing threats of terrorism. In May 2006 representatives from the seven parties of the Swedish parliament debated the question whether the Swedish security service and Swedish police should be permitted to use increased surveillance with the purpose of preventing severe criminality.The question of increased surveillance is a matter often connected to matters of personal privacy. The aim of this master’s thesis is to study which arguments are being used for and against the proposed law that would permit surveillance with the purpose of preventing crime, as well as examine members of Parliaments view on privacy.The methodology used in this thesis is both argumentation analysis and rhetoric analysis. These two tools are used to examine the minutes from a parliamentary debate about the bill mentioned earlier. The results show that several arguments for and against the new law emerged during the debate. Politicians supporting the new law argued that the police force at present is ill-equipped against the increasingly organized criminality and that increased preventional surveillance is necessary in order to protect people in society. The opponents maintained that the bill results in infringement on the integrity of the individual and that there is no need for this sort of surveillance. All members of the parliament state that privacy is very important. Still, politicians supporting the new law claim that in some particular cases privacy must be sacrificed in aid of solving crime. They also state that infringement of integrity can be avoided thanks to measures taken whilst creating the bill. The results also show that there are different opinions among the Swedish parties concerning the possibilities of maintaining a balance between surveillance and privacy. Some parties claim it is impossible while other parties mean it is possible as long as the legal security is satisfactory.