In April 2005 the Central Bureau of Investigation criminal complaint received. It was suspected that the Chinese Huawei company had leaked company secrets via e-mail.
The crime had made the world's largest mobile phone manufacturer Nokia. That employee was noticed in February 2005 in Cannes telecom fair in that a Chinese competitor Huawein network device had features that Nokia introduced the fair the first time publicly.
Nokia needed to display the information leak. It began to poke around their employees' e-mails with identification.
However the company does not have the right to view, scholars have done. Nokia violated in practice, their employees' fundamental right to confidential communications.
But the company's management believes that the wrong was not Nokia, but the law.
The case was a company so important that it introduced järeimmän weapons. Nokia threatened that if the law is not changed, the company will depart from Finland - and carries with it 1.3 billion in tax revenues and 16 of 000 jobs.
Threatening politicians got momentum. Thus began Lex Nokia.
The parliament decided a few weeks of e-Communications amendment proposal. The bill is better known as Lex Nokia. The law against non-governmental organizations have a cross to the spyware law.
Lex Nokia is very well put the name, because the bill had been lobbying a masterpiece. Nokia has ensured that the relevant parties in South Bank Hakaniemi officials and legislators have in time for the understanding of the importance of the law for most of Finland is a company.
The bill also reveals Nokia's exceptional influence in Finland. The company's power has led many officials to close their eyes to the problems.
But what Nokia law change would like to correct?
The law would give the employer the right to monitor employees' e-mail traffic with identification. They are, for example, the message sender and recipient, the message and its attachments are size, time, and the attachment form. The automated observation does not require a suspicion of abuse, and not the employer have to ask for permission from anybody.
Moreover, the employer's right to spy with the new law offices, libraries, universities, schools and even an apartment complex, which has its own communication network. For example, an apartment complex manager can observe the residents' net surfing, where he questions the network will be used as an apartment complex in violation of the rules.
The new law is a contradiction in the fact that the identification sufficient to show whether a message sent to the company secrets. In fact, to communicate the employer is not allowed to read. Supporters of the bill believe, however, that when the control is increasing, workers wary tekemisiään.
Exceptional law should be the start of run "as the snake pyssyyn", as one familiar with the Civil Service describes.
Helsingin Sanomat has interviewed dozens of Lex Nokia participated in the preparation of civil servants, poliitiikkoja and social influences. Nokia's influence because none of them did not want to mention it in their own name.
"Nokia pressed very strongly, so that the bill was adopted by consensus in the preparatory stages. Industries came through the message was very clear: if the law is not accepted, leaving Nokia in Finland," said one official.
"It was a take it or leave it situation. Nokia isojakin organized events, which was the central place of management," says one social factor.
The bill is Huawein case. No later than the Nokia tuskastui to the fact that it can not monitor their employees' e-mail traffic as closely as wanted.
Current electronic data came into force in autumn 2004. Even before the law comes into force, the then Minister of Transport and Communications Leena Luhtanen (SDP) set a monitoring group to investigate the effects. Law following the preparation of the underlying business was a concern that almost at the same time, Labor, prepared by the law of privacy protection in the workplace would limit too much the employer's rights.
Transport and Communications Observatory began quietly preparing a change to fresh baked Data Protection Act. Law In preparation a key role in telling that Nokia was able to convince key officials of the law is necessary. Nokia claimed a loss of already large funds of information leakage because of allegations and not questioned.
Officials did not see the law to the constitutional problems.
"In the case of the basic rights of touch the bill, should the law draftsmen to be especially careful and critical, if other than the authorities are trying to influence the content of the law," says University of Constitutional Law Emeritus Professor Mikael Hidén.
In autumn 2005, Transport and Communications changed. Luhtasen was replaced by Ms Susanna Huovinen (SDP). Ministry officials presented the law Huovinen "technical change".
One ministry employee believes that the problems of law and the working group prepared the dispute in an attempt hides Huovinen. Fresh minister was, however, received a tip that the new law would be unconstitutional.
Huovinen refused the law to sue the Government. In summer 2006, he asked the bill to the opinion of Justice Paavo Nikulalta, which tyrmäsi presentation. For Justice believes that fundamental rights should have been weigh more precisely and in more ways than the bill had been introduced.
This was a major setback for the industry, the Ministry and to Nokia. Plan Act Early entry into force of mureni.
Now, Transport and Communications Ministry officials began punomaan a new tactic.
Nokia civil service and social organizations has been rejected, replied lobattavien of social relations director Veli Sundbäck. At the turn of retired Sundbäck is the Foreign Ministry's former top civil servant, who took part in the EU accession negotiations in Brussels early 1990s.
Sundbäck could not be reached for comment. Nokia does not otherwise want to comment on the draft law on the Helsinki Sanomat.
The bill back the forces found in 2006 that the Minister Huovinen and Labor Tarja Filatov (SDP) niskoittelivat law reform. The pressure of social organizations in the direction of increased. Law riders thought that demaritkin from behind the law, as long as the powerful trade union federations, is declared the first of its necessity.
Several officials of the Confederation of Finnish Industries was the beginning of the transformation of Nokia maturity boy. Some officials suspect that Sundbäck was the preparation of the direct link between the Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen (Center Party).
When labor organizations were behind the law, took the Ministry of Transport and Communications to market the bill the members. Now the argument used to the fact that the law has a broad social support. Thus it was of course, but the memorandum was forgotten, that the social organizations to take a position on the fundamental rights of citizens.
At the same time, lobbying and law-drafting with the Nokia continued its employees an e-mail urkkimista.
Before the case Huawein Nokia had in January 2005 had in fact given by. September was the fact that Nokia had tonkinut e-mails of their employees with identification in the early 2000's. Then Nokia was suspected that the Swedish company Ericsson oululaiselle Microcell subcontractor is to be the leaked Nokia's new mobile phones, secret e-mail.
Identification does not, however, managed to obtain evidence of information leakage. Story dry size.
In spring 2006, the prosecutor Jukka Haavisto found guilty of Nokia's communications secrecy Microcell affair. The criminal prosecution had expired.
Haavisto Soon after the settlement in August 2006, then Nokia's safety director George Ilmonen asked the central criminal police to stop the Huawei-case investigations. According to Nokia, the identification is not possible to obtain sufficient evidence that any of Nokia leaked company secrets.
In spring 2007 Nokia tried once again to reveal the suspected offender identification through. One worker in Salo was criticized by the developer, since the entire staff of the promised bonus was not paid either. He sent messages to thousands of soot underground all over the world. Nokia made a criminal complaint telecommunications harassment. The prosecutor Antti Pihlajamäen believes that the employee to prosecute was not sufficient evidence.
All this had to frustrate Nokia extraordinary.
In autumn 2006 the whole bill had begun to falter at Justice Nikula opinion why.
The social partners were commissioned in the Spring at the University of Helsinki general law professor Kaarlo Tuorilta expert opinion. That means they are seeking to repeal the Ministry of Justice paper, which was highly critical of the new law on point. Although Tuorikin by the Act many changes, transport and communications ministry, it offered a lifeline by which the law could be taken forward.
Later, the Ministry ordered the opinion of the Turku University constitutional law professor Veli-Pekka Viljaselta. His views were not the bill, however, in this day and age, because they were too critical.
Finally, in autumn 2007, a number of times up, Bill was almost complete. The remainder had no attorney in the Office of bolting.
In January 2008 apulaisoikeuskansleri Mikko Puumalainen played the Transport and Communications Ministry and demanded that the bill was removed from the Government's list. The law was still deficiencies in the country's supreme guardian of legality could not accept.
A couple months later, Attorney General John Jonkka decided that a legal impediment to the government motion is not. However, he informed the Transport and Communications director Liisa difference, that the bill was still problematic.
The Act was transferred to parliament in April 2008.
The parliamentary constitutional committee asked for opinions on draft laws from eight law professor. Professors tyrmäsivät law unconstitutional, and strongly criticized its contents.
"Nokia selätti the Constitution," described the Helsinki University constitutional law professor Tuomas Ojanen Helsingin Sanomat in autumn 2008.
"If one company's interest is dominant, we will drop the bottom out of an objective perustuslakiharkinnalta," said the University of Joensuu, public law, Professor Teuvo Pohjolainen.
Professors hearing was essentially a formality, since they painavinta criticism is not taken into account. The November 2008 constitution was a unanimous decision, the bill is not unconstitutional.
Constitutional Law Committee chairman Kimmo Sasi (kok) commented on the draft law Helsingin Sanomat, 20 November 2008 thus: "Many experts have to equate to the employer's authority. We have interpreted the matter differently, because the employer has no authority, but a parallel citizen."
Defenders of the law argue the fact that the employee does not work and the employer's equipment while working on the scope of the right to fully confidential communications.
Professor Ojanen considers this aspect of the European Court of Human Rights against the decision.
"It sounds a little late 1930s the institution of power in thinking. It was then thought that institutions such as prisons, people have no basic rights," Ojanen said.
"The European court of human concepts of no longer have a situation where an employee loses the right, when he enters their jobs through the door."
Legal scholars in addition to the draft law has been persistently critical of the NGO Electronic Frontier Finland. The organization is involved occupy the mass demonstration in Lex to Nokia, the parliament house on Thursday.
The bill passed in parliament just over two weeks' time is almost certain. The presentation encouraged the adoption of the Constitutional opinion, because that is why the law may provide for normal replacement.
Now the adoption of the law is enough majority in parliament, the government subsidy. If the bill should have been dealt with constitutional säätämisjärjestyksessä, would have required five-sixth of the majority.
Bits of Communications Suvi Lindén (IOC) has ensured that the largest government parties are legal rear. Before the bill was given to parliament in spring 2008, Linden was talking about the "Quartet" of four government party chairmen.
Lindén justify the bill by the fact that the government promises to improve the business secrets protection.
"The individual's legal expenses increase because the rules of the game selvenevät. Current law already permits vague identification procedure in cases of suspected abuse," he says.
The only minister who left the government's draft a dissenting opinion, was a green outgoing Chairman, Minister Tarja Cronberg. Party colleague, Minister of Justice Tuija Brax defended the law, but very vigorous, he is not in favor of talk.
"The party's chairman of the quartet of the contract, according to which only the second green ministers are against the law," explains Brax. He is also the law to improve the preparation of the final period.
Prime Minister Vanhanen does not want anymore to justify precisely why he supports the bill.
The opposition has been the law in relation to critical. For example, MP Erkki Tuomioja (SDP) believes that "the law would extend spyware society gray area."
Even the leading legal scholars, it is inconceivable that a new law on private businesses and communities be given greater powers to restrict fundamental rights than the police.
"The bill violates almost all of the legal principles. It is not about getting away, even if politicians try to argue otherwise," says the University of Joensuu, criminal and procedural law, Professor Matti Tolvanen.
"Identification display the value of the criminal process is non-existent. It's very strange that a private entity would need information about something. Investigations of alleged infringement should not be a state for any outsourced to private, as is now proposed."
Helsinki University legal history and Roman law professor Jukka Kekkonen's view, Finland has long been consciously and unconsciously, perhaps added to the public control. Lex Nokia is a part of this development. Kekkosta also scared that the basic rights of kaventavia powers now granted to private parties.
"It undermines the Western rule of law, basic principles," he says.
Kekkonen finds it positive that the legal scholars on the constitutional committee were unanimous.
"It is not very common, and that is why for legal votes should have been weigh very much."
Finland's largest company of Nokia's turnover was last year, four billion more than the Finnish state indicative budget for the current year. Nokia in 2007 in Finland paid by corporation, 1,3 billion euros, was the fifth of the entire corporation tax returns.
It is quite a lever.
Nokia's social report says that it respects human dignity and promote human rights: "Nokia recognizes, together with the international community, that certain human rights are fundamental and universal, and based on accepted international agreements and practices, such as the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
Professor Ojasen Lex believes that Nokia should have access to the European Court of Human Rights position. He hopes that one of the NGO would take the court.
"European Court of Human Rights has sometimes dealt with abstract legal questions, if there is reason to doubt the ECHR eighth breach of Article," Ojanen said, referring to article which everyone is guaranteed the right to privacy.
"If the court considers the law to violate the human rights convention, it makes the confirmation of sentence. In Finland, it would be impossible to ignore."
According to Nokia, the universal freedoms of expression and freedom of expression. Information and technology law professor Jukka Kemppinen wrote the Constitution on its opinion that, ultimately, the bill is about freedom of speech.
So, its a violation.
source
No comments:
Post a Comment