Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

The barrier to be accepted is very low. And there is another, lower "mark" as well called "Sekretessmarkering" ("Privacy mark") which can give you similar benefits and has even lower barrier.

Or are you saying you did apply for this and it wasn't successful?

View on HN

As mentioned previously, I applied and got denied. For obvious reasons I don't really want to go into details, but the experience I have of the swedish police force is that it is completely meaningless to even report things to them.

In the UK the next step would be to approach either the Police and Crime Commissioner (an elected person who oversees the local Police service), or the local Member of Parliament, or to seek a Judicial Review via the courts.

If you’re genuinely at risk then surely this can be established and must become actionable?

I'm not OP. But asking the government to give you back privacy seems the worst of all possible worlds. The people who need it the most are usually the people the Swedish government wants dead, e.g. Assange.

"The people who need it the most are usually the people the Swedish government wants dead," Citation very much needed. Both on the claims that the Swedish government actually want people dead. And that this would need this protection _usually_ are in this category.

There are literally thousands of people that has this protection. 14000 women has this, commonly to protect them against an abusive partner (not the government). This page in Swedish provides more info: https://jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se/mans-vald-mot-kvinnor/sk...

If thousands of people need this every year (and the bar to getting it is low as you say) why is privacy not the default? Wouldn't that be easier?

Thousands of people get cavities fixed each year, but we don't drill out everyone's teeth.

You don't have the police decide if you get your teeth fixed.

(Note that it is not thousands of new people each year. It is the number of people that has this protection. Out of 10+ million people,)

Good question.

From a technical, byrocratic point of view it breaks a lot of systems, which makes practical aspects in normal daily life hard. But that could be fixed, right? Efficiency over privacy is a political question.

But, as someone mentioned earlier the constitution and the general culture, society formed from has (probably - I'm guessing) fostered an openness that not only applies to public services and organizations too. For many people and generations, the government has been seen (and still is) perceived as something good. Something Swedish citizens are part of. But of course there are also people and political parties that think private privacy is more important, and should be increased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com