Hemlig dataavläsning - Intresseavvägningen mellan effektiv brottsbekämpning och skydd för den personliga integriteten

Sammanfattning: Over the past years in Sweden, there has been a lot of discussions concerning the struggle on gang-related misconduct. Enclosed in the framework of the Swedish government's 34-point program, moreover an agenda comprising several proposals for measures to combat gang-related criminality, a new temporary legislation was introduced for a period of five years. In April 2020, the Secret Data Interception Act (2020:62) was introduced to permit the authorities to read encrypted communications in real time without the individual's comprehension. This thesis aims to critically analyze secret data interception and the Secret Data Interception Act, based on the interests of the individual's right to protection of personal integrity and effective law enforcement. What has been investigated is how the Secret Data Interception Act relates to the protection of personal integrity and guarantees of legal certainty regulated in the Swedish constitutional law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, it has been assessed whether the secret data interception has resulted in appropriate measures in terms of law enforcement. Based on these assessments, i.e., protection of personal integrity as well as the effective law enforcement, a conclusion will be drawn on whether the temporary Secret Data Interception Act should be made permanent following the legislation period. This thesis concludes that the secret data interception is an effective measure in terms of law enforcement. The secret data interception has resulted in effective actions against gang-related misconduct. This, within several areas, e.g., effective reconnaissance and exclusion of suspected individuals from police investigations. Although theoretically, this thesis also demonstrates that the Secret Data Interception Act is, in accordance with the guidelines on protection of personal integrity and the legal security guarantees stipulated in the regulations above. However, compliance with these safety mechanisms is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies and regulatory authorities. According to present investigations, there are shortcomings in compliance regarding supervision. In fact, supervisory authority such as the Security and Integrity Protection Board lack sufficient resources to conduct effective supervision of the law enforcement authorities' use of secret data interception. In addition, the prosecutor's ability to decide on such an intrusive measure as secret data interception should be revised, as prosecutors may become the individual's counterpart if the investigation continues. When protection of personal integrity and guarantees of legal certainty can be guaranteed such interim decisions should be allowed. Otherwise, the provision should be excluded from the law. In conclusion, as protection of personal privacy cannot currently be ensured, the Secret Data Interception Act should not be made permanent following the temporary legislation period of five year.