Do you think that's accurate?
Why would the average person feel so strongly negative about this topic?
Do you think that's accurate?
Why would the average person feel so strongly negative about this topic?
We had quite a movement for digital freedom about a decade ago when the Pirate Party was on the rise and there was opposition against surveillance from FRA (Swedish equivalent of NSA), but the average person doesn't care and I think even the previous activists have been in a state of fatigue and silent acceptance for years now.
I don't have any illusion of lobbying and diplomatic pressure having lessened since.
Wow...as described here, your legal system sounds...useless.
1. The judge in the pirate bay case was a member of an organisation "Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt"/"The Swedish Organisation for Copyright" (my own translation), and it was decided not to be partial to the pirate bay case. See for example [0].
2. Even if there were diplomatic pressures on Sweden from the US (which there were [1], their actual impact is what is in question), it should be impossible for a minister to influence the police directly [2]. Which makes for the pirate bay take down to be a ridiculous coincidence.
3. Sweden allows lawyers with their own, so called, "intellectual property" interests to defend suspects of file-sharing. See for example [3] which do give credit for this lawyer doing a good job, but just in principle this seems absurd (imo). I hope he is not allowed to be the defence lawyer if it is his own material at least.
[0] (Swedish, summary in English) https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/3800...
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-us-pushed-sweden-to-take-do...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre
[3] (Swedish) https://overklass.wordpress.com/tag/fildelning/
Well... I'm not sure that's how you should see it. For example, skimming the document I mentioned, they have a section "Konsekvensanalys"/Analysis of consequences. There they address for example socio-economic impact, but not "popular opinion on the matter", or similar.
I think it would be more appropriate to see the investigation as objective (to some degree), and the final voting by the parties (on a potential future bill) as their considerations how this would impact their popularity. If the objective conclusion is that X should be done, a party may still not vote to implement X because of peoples opinion on the matter.