Fear is a commercial gadget

To penetrate the issue about fear culture, one must discuss the drivers for this. The interest from media is of course very much a commercial one. Fear is one of the favorite headline words, used in every possible angle. Fear will attract more listeners, viewers, readers and then also the advertisers. It is also quite common to repeat the fear story and get it into a day-to-day news item. There must be a checklist somewhere in journalists manuals. Fx. start with an incident, follow-up with some scary facts, then with some connected stories and so on. In Barry Glassner's "Culture of fear" he is doing sociologic descriptions of several of these scares in US. One common feature is that there should be a "independent expert" that is willing to deliver all kinds of twisted facts. These experts are frequently self-made and misuse their scientific status, like reputation or referrals.

But what kind of economical interest has government in fear business? In Sweden has it been common to use arguments for having a warfare industry in the sense that we are neutral and should not be dependent on other nations technology. And since warfare industry is very expensive. we need to export our products. But now FRA needs to buy computers for billions of Swedish kronor. Only costs, as far as I can see? Or will we make analysis of Internet traffic and sell this to foreign intelligence services?

Again, I must draw some parallells with the macro (state/society) and micro (personal/family) perspectives. I read yesterday that more and more people fear burglery in their homes. The statistics are quite clear, though, it has been going down for the last 15 years. Despite this, security companies thrive, convincing people to buy even more advanced equipment. Can it be like that? that our politicians living in their homes, that they like to feel secure and therefore buy expensive gear for protection?

Blue-eyed swedes

The people's revolt about the parliament's vote last week is still growing. A lot of blogs are publishing disparaging comments and personal reflections about individual parliament members. There is only one parliament member that stood out and voted NO and she is now being honoured as a heroine. The party whip is a tool that became very apparen in the internal debate and a lot of people are disappointed that although we have possibility to list individual parliament members during voting there is still a great lack of personal standpoints. Maybe this can be somewhat refreshing for the individual listing? There are probably lots of individuals that have more interest in a personal attention or gain rather than being a true representative.

One thing that is bothering me is the belief that all FRA agents/computer analysts from now and forever on will NOT be able to bribe or being able to buy pieces of information from. To avoid this - we would need at least as big control agency and just imagine the costs for that! The government has entered a path into a less brighter future. The tolerance against critics is low - it was published one example today where a party communication manager tried to interfere with a private company on a management-to-management basis in order to quiet a blog that was linked to their company. The road to a society where freedom of speech will be a controlled one is no longer in the future - this is a first small piece of taste!

The objective given for this interference on highest political level was a fear that the private company's brand would become hurt. Such a "considerate action" from the political world?

Sweden is entering the US fear culture

Finally, the Swedish democratic system resulted in a mental breakdown . The political majority forced their individual parliament members to vote in favour for a eavesdrop on all e-mail and telephone traffic that crosses the nation's borders. Sweden is then aligning the US fear for terrorism although no threats or attacks have been official. I wouldn't say that the US fear is valid either - is their nation in a threat from terrorism? The question goes back to what fear is - really. Do I fear that my family will be killed? Yes - of course, if there is rational argument that would convince me about that. The problem in the terrorism fear debate has been the complete mix up of personal fear and national fear. I believe in some surveillance systems, like CCD cameras on subways where the violence may be imminent when travelling at off hours. But that does NOT put me in a position where I feel comfort with surveillance of large parts of my personal communication (telephone and e-mail). I highly distrust the common arguments that links communication surveillance to prevention of terrorist acts. In the past, there might have been some evidence of this but it doesn't have to be like that forever.

My discomfort lies in the disbelief of human nature. Why should I trust all my governmental employees if they don't trust me? Can I ever be sure that their personal objectives will remain objective/neutral? Times are a-changing and in a near future some of these highly trusted agents might become directed by some other governmental regulations or recommendations.

A lot of Swedes are really disappointed on their political representatives because of their loss of engagement in any discussion regarding the kind of society developmental pathway we are taking by this initiative. It has been nick-named "Lex Orwell" for instance. Several IT-based international companies are now leaving Sweden because of this and the question is of there is a future for development of political ideas and open discussions any more? There is some time left before the legislation starts to become effective - but recent disclosures about FRA (acronym for the National Defence Radio Establishment) revealed that they have been storing data for some 10 years with unclear jurisdictional enforcements.

The main reason for me to start this blog today is to wake up citizens in other countries, in EU or elsewhere. Do we believe that anything is possible/necessary to enforce in order to control your citizens? Isn't it very much reminding us about the DDR or North Korea (DPRK, Democratic People's Republic of Korea - isn't that a joke????). Maybe we need another definition of Democratic societies?

The latest news today in Sweden revealed that FRA now requests major grants for investments in new hardware (FRA is currently owner of the world's 11th most effective super computer) and new staff (some 200 people). Is this really what our society needs? Alternative investments are of course plentiful, social welfare investments, urgent infrastructural investmets etc.