[ad_1]
In the fall of 2018, the Swedish police were in the middle of one of the largest investigations into digital crime in history. Researchers put the puzzle around Fly Agaric 2.0, a large drug trafficking site on the so-called darknet where drugs worth hundreds of millions had been passed from buyers to sellers.
An important part was tracking the email addresses that the police linked to the suspects. At least eleven addresses were identified, but since several of them were in Google’s Gmail or Microsoft-owned Hotmail, the police were unable to access them with standard enforcement measures, but had to go to the companies’ headquarters with a request.
In some cases, it took months, but in the end the companies complied. The results can be seen in the preliminary investigation report: Months of email exchanges, hotel reservations and photographs of the suspects. But also the IP addresses from which the logins were made and the information that the suspects entered when they registered their accounts.
Such information becomes increasingly important in Swedish police investigations, but it is impossible to access without the cooperation of internet giants like Facebook and Google.
Now, the latest figures show that both disclose information to the Swedish authorities more than ever. Both companies are breaking records, according to so-called company transparency reports, where they report how data is sent to authorities.
The clearest is Facebook. During the first half of 2020, Sweden sent 505 requests for data, a 30 percent increase in one year. Google also reported the highest number during the same period: 373.
Furthermore, it is increasingly unusual for Swedish police investigations to be rejected. As recently as the first half of 2015, only one in three questions to Google by Swedish authorities led to data disclosure. But now it has increased dramatically; according to the latest figures, it happened in nine out of ten cases.
Facebook also discloses data to a corresponding degree, but the level there has been high for a long time.
According to the police, it is the result of a new way of working. In the past, the country’s police used to send their own questions to the headquarters of the Internet giants. This often caused companies to hesitate.
– Before, questions from police officers in the country could be asked in different ways. So when companies were asked, sometimes they weren’t sure what was actually being requested or if the person asking had powers, says Jan Olsson, commissioner of crimes at the national police IT crime center.
Today it is done in a coordinated way via Noah, National Operations Department. This has made companies publish data more frequently and quickly.
– We have now established a contact where we do not have to go to the prosecutors, but we can get answers to our questions directly, says Jan Olsson.
However, this only applies to certain information: like what IP address a user has connected to. To obtain private messages and the like, an official request for legal assistance from the International Chamber of Prosecutors is required.
In addition, the so-called double criminality is required, that the investigation refers to an act that is criminal both in Sweden and in the country where the company is based, usually the United States. Incitement to ethnic groups is an example of something that is punished in Sweden but falls within the freedom of expression in the United States.
According to the company’s own report, Snapchat released information only once during the first half of 2020.
Photo: Jaap Arriens / TT
Not all companies post user data as frequently as Google and Facebook. According to the company’s own report, the image and messaging service Snapchat provided information only once during the first half of 2020. A total of 114 requests were sent from Sweden, of which 7 were classified as emergency.
DN has searched for the company behind Snapchat, which it declines to comment.
According to Jan Olsson, the reason is the same, which meant that a higher proportion of questions to Google were previously unanswered. In relation to Snapchat, the issues have not been coordinated until recently, but are sent by individual police officers in the country. But now the police have also started coordinating the issues with Snapchat.
Marcin de Kaminski works with digital issues at the human rights organization Defenders of Civil Rights. He emphasizes that data from tech giants can be important in police investigations, but says that disclosure must follow carefully designed rules.
“Otherwise, the risk is that the investigations are unnecessarily broad and lengthy, which could lead law enforcement authorities to collect excess information on citizens who are not even suspected of crimes,” he says.
The designated director in the investigation against the drug forum Flugsvamp 2.0 was acquitted of some of the charges in district court, but the verdict has been appealed.
