When the storm hits - sit still in the boat

The terrorist attacks in Paris sent shockwaves throughout Europe. A heightened terror threat level and endless live broadcasts about the hunt for possible terrorists in Sweden followed one another. Public concern and the expectation that the government would take action led the Prime Minister to promise strong measures and new police legislation. But was it the right time to make such promises?

The experience of the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and the September 11 attacks in 2001, where comprehensive surveillance legislation was promised, says otherwise.

The September 11 attacks led to the Patriot Act and, by extension, to an unprecedented mass surveillance scandal. The attacks in 2004 led to the Traffic Data Retention Directive, and it was promised dearly that the information would only be used to investigate extremely serious crimes. A few years later, Swedish police were granted the right to use traffic data to investigate criminal fines. And earlier this year, the directive was ruled unconstitutional and too intrusive by the European Court of Justice.

Now the Swedish government, led by the prime minister, has promised to quickly investigate the possibility of police installing spyware on individuals' computers and phones to monitor them secretly. Several legal and technical experts (as well as a former prime minister) have expressed strong doubts about such extensive coercive measures.

Secretly monitoring everything that happens on a computer or phone gives the police an enormous amount of power. However laudable the aim, there is good reason to wonder whether, once the tool is in the police's toolbox, there will not be demands for wider applications?

The risk of purpose creep is obvious and the government would be wise to sit tight until the worst of the storm has passed.