Other people's lives. That's what it's all about. Surveillance is a measure used to look into other people's lives for the off chance that they might do something wrong. This summer the PET commission issued a report of individuals in Denmark put under surveillance from 1945-89 by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service in Denmark/PET. A full 16 volumes that took a decade to complete. Much debated over the summer, because people found themselves mentioned in the volumes.
Then last night, I attended a public meeting by members of a judicial policy association, presented by a panel consisting of former PET Director General Ole Stig Andersen, Professor, dr.jur. Ole Espersen, lawyer with a licence to represent in the Supreme Court in Denmark, Bjørn Elmquist, and politician Per Clausen from The Red-Green Alliance (Ø) - several of these having been scrutinized over a period.
The debate was about PET's legal grounds and reasons to set up surveillance. Some had been scrutinized without just cause for their legal political activities. And although even the former PET Director General of Ole Stig Andersen naturally couldn't reveal any methods, he had been criticising the current set up of PET. In his days, 1975-84, he explained, 'we were 35-40 employees and registered people on a card drum'. The PET of today has anvanced considerably since then, with about 650 employees and an agenda to work in the fields of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, and counter-extremism.
The PET commission's report was originally designated to also cover reports from the scrutinized individuals themselves. But this was abandoned. So the above panel of the judicial policy association had taken the initiative to gather reports from these individuals and will issue their own report later this year - more precisely it is to be expected published on 24th November this year.
Finally! A report to survey the surveillance over the surveillance. Someone to watch over the ones that watch over the other people who watch...Hold on, am I getting this right? A very contra surveillance like paradox.
For further information, please see:
http://www.petkommissionen.dk/
Then last night, I attended a public meeting by members of a judicial policy association, presented by a panel consisting of former PET Director General Ole Stig Andersen, Professor, dr.jur. Ole Espersen, lawyer with a licence to represent in the Supreme Court in Denmark, Bjørn Elmquist, and politician Per Clausen from The Red-Green Alliance (Ø) - several of these having been scrutinized over a period.
The debate was about PET's legal grounds and reasons to set up surveillance. Some had been scrutinized without just cause for their legal political activities. And although even the former PET Director General of Ole Stig Andersen naturally couldn't reveal any methods, he had been criticising the current set up of PET. In his days, 1975-84, he explained, 'we were 35-40 employees and registered people on a card drum'. The PET of today has anvanced considerably since then, with about 650 employees and an agenda to work in the fields of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, and counter-extremism.
The PET commission's report was originally designated to also cover reports from the scrutinized individuals themselves. But this was abandoned. So the above panel of the judicial policy association had taken the initiative to gather reports from these individuals and will issue their own report later this year - more precisely it is to be expected published on 24th November this year.
Finally! A report to survey the surveillance over the surveillance. Someone to watch over the ones that watch over the other people who watch...Hold on, am I getting this right? A very contra surveillance like paradox.
For further information, please see:
http://www.petkommissionen.dk/