What happened?

[Edward Frank]

Can anyone tell me why the site went down?  I couldn't read the Swedish explanation.

[Anna-Carin Betzén]

A few days ago, the Swedish Data Inspection Board criticized some aspects of the site, like the fact that you don't have to register in order to access the information on the site, and that some living people have been mentioned without their consent. The site was closed temporarily while the board of this site was analyzing the verdict and deciding what measures to take.  
 
Right now there's a vivid discussion (in Swedish) about this verdict and its implications.

[Maurits Bengtsson]

Edward
 
The decree in question has a threatening tone and asserts that Anbytarforum contravenes the law by having referred to the ethnic identity and criminal records of living persons. In addition, some information posted is younger than 70 years and so deemed to be in breach of the law (unless consent has been granted by those the information refers to).
 
The discussion has focused on the fact that while the server is located in Finland, the authority deems itself to have the jurisdiction to apply the Swedish law PUL (the revised data law from 1998) presumably because the site is run by Sveriges Släktforskarförbund from Sweden by Swedish residents).  
 
Several people have suggested that the whole site or parts of it should move outside the EU to avoid the intervention of DI (The Data Inspection Authority). As it now stands the site is self-regulated by the Anbytarvärd (a site host) who removes inappropriate posts.
 
Others have suggested that while the section on the ancestry on famous people should be restricted (or abolished) while the section on the genealogy of ethic groups such as the Sami people and Travelers must be protected for meaningful research to be allowed to continue. Currently these sections have been shut down, pending consideration from the board. Even the non-structured section called the word is free is also ominously closed . Although the dictate from DI is vague and subject to interpretation, its implications could be quite far-reaching and detrimental to the site if zealously enforced.
 
A few have expressed dismay that some choose to post anonymously and they advocate user accounts - an unappealing and limiting proposition to this writer. Others have noted that it is a question of free speech and that the very mood of the forum has begun to change to a more restrictive and controlled space, especially as all are mindful of the watchful eye of the authorities. A vocal minority is advocating some form of control over contributors and seem to have no problem with also restricting access to who will be able to view the site.  
 
I urge the English readers (especially those in the United States) to engage themselves as the outcome will doubtlessly affect them. For instance, you will no longer be able to find living relatives in Sweden through the site (or it will be more difficult). The sections that refer to the databases of the Swedish population in 1970 and 1980 have been suspended (even those these CD sources were made with the help of the Official Population Registry). You could help us with your tradition of the freedom of information - a principle whose true value does not seem to have unanimous support here, unfortunately.
 
Regards,
 
Maurits

[Carolyn Johnosn Eccles]

Maurits:
So how can we English readers from the USA be of help??

[Elsie V. Martin]

Hello Maurits,
I appreciate your lengthy clarification of the action taken against Sverigessläktforskarsförbund.  It was very illuminating.  I would just like to highlight the issues you have mentioned for English speaking readers.  If there is something I have missed, please let me know.
 
1)  There is criticism regarding researching living famous people.
2)  There is criticism regarding posting anonymously.  Does that mean that in the future, we all need a löseord (password)?  Also, there is a question about user accounts.  Is this tied into posting anonymously, or registering with the website?
3)  Shutdown on research concerning Sami people and research.  (I'm not certain if Americans are concerned with this unless one is a researcher.)
4)  The Word is Free/Ordet ar fritt  Evidently this section is under scrutiny, but most Americans do not post to this section, since it requires Swedish.
5)  Living relatives are of interest to Americans wanting to visit Sweden.  This could be a problem in the future, and needs to be clarified.

[Elsie V. Martin]

Hello Maurits,
I appreciate your lengthy clarification of the action taken against Sverigessläktforskarsförbund.  It was very illuminating.  I would just like to highlight the issues you have mentioned for English speaking readers.  If there is something I have missed, please let me know.
 
1)  There is criticism regarding researching living famous people.
2)  There is criticism regarding posting anonymously.  Does that mean that in the future, we all need a löseord (password)?  Also, there is a question about user accounts.  Is this tied into posting anonymously, or registering with the website?
3)  Shutdown on research concerning Sami people and research.  (I'm not certain if Americans are concerned with this unless one is a researcher.)
4)  The Word is Free/Ordet ar fritt  Evidently this section is under scrutiny, but most Americans do not post to this section, since it requires Swedish.
5)  Living relatives are of interest to Americans wanting to visit Sweden.  This could be a problem in the future, and needs to be clarified.
 
Elsie V. Martin
Brooklyn Center, USA

[Michael Lundholm]

The above summary of the decision of the Data Inspection Board does not seem entirely accurate to me. The posting of information regarding individuals alive is clearly not allowed (unless the individual consent), but that was not anything that was under review of the Board. Rather, it was the posting of sensitive information (such as regarding ethnicity and criminal records) that was criticised. That is, even if the information was regarding deceased individuals it would not be allowed to post it since it indirectly could be related to individuals alive. The consent of these individuals would apperently not matter, according to the Board, in the case of sensitive information. Another thing is that the discussion on AF regarding these issues also include at lot of other things not addressed by the Board. At the end of the day, however, I would very surprised that the utility of AF to any of us would be reduced by any actions that SSF may have to take.

[Maurits Bengtsson]

In my opinion, everyone should be concerned as changes will affect the entire forum, not just particular sections. That said, I am unsure what needs to be done - sorry Carolyn. I simply urge users to make their voices and opinions heard.
 
The relevance, Elsie, is to all and perhaps Americans in particular, because the PuL law, according to some, could criminalize the electronic transfer of personal data overseas (i.e. to the United States). While the collection and systemization of genealogical information younger than 70 years is presumably allowed if it is for personal use; it is the spread of such information via electronic means which triggers the application of PuL, which explicitly refers to the dissemination of such data overseas.
 
Michael rightfully notes that discussions are beyond the DI directive, but I respectfully disagree that SSF actions would be inconsequential. If unregistered individuals were disallowed to view postings - the site would, in effect, be closed. It is really anybodys guess how this would affect traffic; but it is not likely to increase it. The discussions on what criteria are needed to open a user account are troubling. Some stress the importance of ascertaining peoples identities (sorry no hotmail addresses). Each issue opens its own can of worms. The 70 year rule in particular. Presumably it could be an impenetrable barrier to some who are just starting out in genealogy and to others wishing to do research in the opposite direction. Finally, there will no doubt be much debate on what is allowed or what is too sensitive.

[Chuck Mäki]

Where online is the Swedish discussion of this situation?
I have no problem with people who post at sites such as this to be registered.  I am registered with Finlander site, http://finlander.eget.net/ which allows me to post.  Visitors are allowed to view threads without posting but if they wish to post, they must register.  I think it's a way to keep in check those restless unemployed who delight in vandalizing websites.  
Chuck

[Edward Frank]

I suggest that we meet at  
http://genforum.genealogy.com
go to Countries then Sweden
I think that I am correct that genforum is operated within the USA.  I would suggest that Swedish citizens examine the law, with which I am unfamiliar, to see if rather than being a guarantor of the rights of the individual, it is a restriction on those rights.  An open society like Sweden's is able to discuss, reason, and correct bad laws. Lastly, there has been much discussion in my country about the freedom of the world wide web.  The consensus seems to be that in spite of attempts, such as in China, to control access to the web, the genie is out of the bottle and will not consent to be put back in.  The last invention to have this effect on the dissemination of information was Guttenberg's movable type.  Governments have been trying to censor the printed word ever since, but ultimately have alway lost the battle.

[Maurits Bengtsson]

.
 
A tip is to click blue tab on left which reads Nytt Senaste dyngn to see new, daily postings on Anbytarforum. Or click  here.

[Chuck Mäki]

Thanks Maurits,
I tried the first archived version on my tolken99 software and it was just too much for it - a lot of slang I suppose.  
It would appear that few demands for restrictions of personal liberty show up.  
I don't know if this has any thing to do with this discussion but suddenly I was reminded of a joke by Prairie Home Compansion radio and sometimes tv show host Garrison Keillor who said something like this:  the pilgrims came over to America from England, not to get religious freedom but to get more restrictions.  Something like that but you get the drift.
I would say a good thing to do in Sweden is to organize and frighten the politicans who are always looking to preserve their own skins and who would not want to risk losing the next election  Always works here, well, except where one side stuffs the electronic no paper trail election machines.
Chuck

[Timmy Brolin]

I think Michael Lundholm posted the most accurate translation of the key issues in the decision of the Data Inspection Board.
 
If someone is interested, there is a copy of the actual decision sent by the Data Inspection Board here: http://www.genealogi.se/filer/utslag.pdf
It is a scanned paper in swedish, so automatic translation could be a problem.
 
Chuck: I like the joke

[Chuck Mäki]

Hej Timmy,
Garrison is quite the laid back character
When I went to post this and more, I saw in the English language area, red letter warnings in Swedish.  I wonder if it's demanding better grammar and spelling so I am doing my best
Is that warning put there by the Swedish FBI which insists on Swedish only?
 
Chuck

[Eva Dahlberg]

Chuck! There is corresponding information in English prepared, but it basically says that NB On Anbytarforum you should only write about deceased persons. Postings on living persons may be deleted without warning. Of course you may mention a living fellow researcher.  
Hint! If you don't know whether someone is deceased, use a 100-years rule, i.e. if the person you want to ask about was born before 1905, go ahead, otherwise don't.
 
regards,
Eva

[Timmy Brolin]

And no, it was not put there by the FBI  
The rule is simply a clarification and a reminder that according to a swedish law you are not allowed to post personal information about any living individual without their consent.

[Chuck Mäki]

I tried to begin a new thread here and all I got was the OBS! in red.  I must have missed how to begin a new thread even though I've done it in the past so here is my info and perhaps somebody can put it where it really belongs:
ORPHANS HOME, ANDOVER IL, 1880 CENSUS ONLINE
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilhenry/orphans/cen1880_oh.htm?o_xid=0022846292&o_lid=0022846292
Perhaps a lost child ended up in this place?
 
 
Chuck hopes the managers and Swedish CIA, not FBI, will get together on management of this great website!  
Oh yes, and please tell them we have plenty of room in our secret torture prisons in Europe that nobody knows about
Shhhh! don't read this too loudly
Chuck

[Chuck Mäki]

I received an email on this and this is a part of the so-called law that is strange.
...Article (or Section) 21 is simply hilarious:
 
   It is prohibited for other parties than public authorities to
   process personal data concerning legal offences involving crime,
   judgments in criminal cases, coercive penal procedural measures
   or administrative deprivation of liberty....
 
This looks like a law that any conservative administration could live with.  It doesn't allow anybody other than the government to talk about torture (coercive penal procedural measures).  Good for the government, bad for the rest of us.  So one must wonder what the government is trying to hide.
 
Hmmm,  
Chuck