attempts to access blacklisted Web pages to a page with a warning message. 46 The list is
generated without judicial or public oversight and is kept secret by the ISPs using it. A
list of supposedly blocked addresses was posted to Wikileaks in March 2009, containing 3,518 DNS addresses. 47 According to Wikileaks, many of the sites on the (Norwegian) list had no obvious connection to child pornography. The Norwegian and
Danish lists had 1,097 URLs in common. Police in Germany raided the owner of the
German Wikileaks domain name (a mirror site) in March 2009 48 because the Web site
published copies of Nordic filtering lists.
As a member of the EEA, Norway has enacted legislation in line with the EU directive
on electronic commerce, 49 which among other things states that ISPs shall not monitor their subscribers’ use of the Internet. However, the general interpretation in Norway of the directive is that ISPs may be responsible for illegal content on their servers
(e.g., child pornography, copyrighted material) if the provider, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that such content is present, does not act expeditiously to remove or
disable access to the content.
As a result of this directive, some ISPs have devised user agreements that empower
the service provider to remove any controversial content, including content that is
not illegal, to protect themselves from being held liable in any controversy surrounding content.
For example, in February 2008 the Norwegian ISP Imbera removed images of the
Danish ‘‘Muhammad cartoons’’ from the Web pages of one of their customers, an organization called Human Rights Service, on the grounds that Imbera’s user agreement
prohibits users from uploading controversial content to Imbera’s servers. 50
In Norway, the police can demand the subscriber information associated with a particular IP address from an ISP without a court order. This authority follows from a
Supreme Court decision in 1999, in a case involving an Internet subscriber suspected
of distributing child pornography. 51 As a result of the ruling, the police can demand
personal information in all types of cases. According to press reports, the refusal of
the police to get involved in the Max Manus file-sharing case is the reason Simonsen
Advokatfirma DA had to go to civil court.
Surveillance
All Nordic countries hold freedom of expression in high regard. Having military intelligence agencies monitor private citizens’ telecommunications in detail and without
controls has stimulated emotional debate and antisurveillance movements. The two
major forces behind the legal changes in the Nordic countries are fear of terrorism
and infringements on copyright. Government surveillance and censorship do not sit
well with the Nordic notion of being free and democratic societies, and the introduction of new measures has created an unusually emotional debate in the region.
330
Nordic Countries
generated without judicial or public oversight and is kept secret by the ISPs using it. A
list of supposedly blocked addresses was posted to Wikileaks in March 2009, containing 3,518 DNS addresses. 47 According to Wikileaks, many of the sites on the (Norwegian) list had no obvious connection to child pornography. The Norwegian and
Danish lists had 1,097 URLs in common. Police in Germany raided the owner of the
German Wikileaks domain name (a mirror site) in March 2009 48 because the Web site
published copies of Nordic filtering lists.
As a member of the EEA, Norway has enacted legislation in line with the EU directive
on electronic commerce, 49 which among other things states that ISPs shall not monitor their subscribers’ use of the Internet. However, the general interpretation in Norway of the directive is that ISPs may be responsible for illegal content on their servers
(e.g., child pornography, copyrighted material) if the provider, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that such content is present, does not act expeditiously to remove or
disable access to the content.
As a result of this directive, some ISPs have devised user agreements that empower
the service provider to remove any controversial content, including content that is
not illegal, to protect themselves from being held liable in any controversy surrounding content.
For example, in February 2008 the Norwegian ISP Imbera removed images of the
Danish ‘‘Muhammad cartoons’’ from the Web pages of one of their customers, an organization called Human Rights Service, on the grounds that Imbera’s user agreement
prohibits users from uploading controversial content to Imbera’s servers. 50
In Norway, the police can demand the subscriber information associated with a particular IP address from an ISP without a court order. This authority follows from a
Supreme Court decision in 1999, in a case involving an Internet subscriber suspected
of distributing child pornography. 51 As a result of the ruling, the police can demand
personal information in all types of cases. According to press reports, the refusal of
the police to get involved in the Max Manus file-sharing case is the reason Simonsen
Advokatfirma DA had to go to civil court.
Surveillance
All Nordic countries hold freedom of expression in high regard. Having military intelligence agencies monitor private citizens’ telecommunications in detail and without
controls has stimulated emotional debate and antisurveillance movements. The two
major forces behind the legal changes in the Nordic countries are fear of terrorism
and infringements on copyright. Government surveillance and censorship do not sit
well with the Nordic notion of being free and democratic societies, and the introduction of new measures has created an unusually emotional debate in the region.
330
Nordic Countries