Finland's proposed new military intelligence act has drawn sharp criticism from the country's two top legal watchdogs. Chancellor of Justice Janne Salminen and Parliamentary Ombudsman Jari RÃ¥man both filed separate statements opposing key parts of the draft law. They warn the legislation would significantly expand intelligence powers while eroding constitutional protections for private communications.
High-Level Legal Objections
Salminen and RÃ¥man focused their critique on several specific proposals. One major change would remove the obligation to notify a private individual after their telecommunications data has been targeted for intelligence gathering. The officials argue this represents a significant shift for individual legal protections. Salminen stated this removal must be better justified and examined from a constitutional perspective.
The new law would also mean intelligence gathering directed at entities other than "state actors" would no longer be limited by protections safeguarding the secrecy of private communications. This change is particularly problematic.
Targeting Content and Individuals
Under the proposed rules, telecommunications intelligence could target based on "the content of a message or a person residing in Finland based on identifying information of a telecommunications terminal or address." Salminen identified this as a core constitutional issue.
"These are significant changes from the current situation," Salminen said. "Targeting based on message content, in particular, falls within the core area of protection for confidential communications and is therefore a significant restriction of fundamental rights under Section 10.4 of the Constitution."
He noted a major flaw in the legislative process. "It appears, however, that the proposal has not been discussed at all in the draft's preparatory documents. This deficiency must be corrected," Salminen demanded.
The End of Post-Surveillance Notification?
The draft law also proposes that targeted telecommunications intelligence directed at a single person would no longer require notification to that person, even after the fact. This creates a scenario where a person's confidential message identifiers or content could be investigated without their knowledge.
RÃ¥man highlighted the constitutional significance of this shift. "The change is significant for the protection of confidential communications guaranteed by the Constitution and from a constitutional law perspective," RÃ¥man stated. "Communication metadata falls within the scope of the secrecy of confidential messages."
He echoed Salminen's concern about procedural oversight. "Without further evaluating this part of the proposal, I note that the draft's preparatory documents do not seem to address this proposed change at all, which I consider a deficiency," RÃ¥man said in his statement.
Existing Oversight Mechanisms Remain
The new intelligence law would not remove every avenue for redress. The current right for any person to request the Intelligence Oversight Commissioner to investigate the legality of a possible intelligence method used against them would remain. A person can also make a complaint about suspected intelligence activities directed at them.
Salminen made a further observation about this oversight process. He noted the draft law states that abandoning the notification obligation would unlikely affect the number of investigation requests made to the Oversight Commissioner. This assumption, however, forms part of the ongoing legal debate.
Constitutional Concerns at the Forefront
The core of the criticism from both officials rests on constitutional grounds. Finland's Constitution, specifically Section 10, guarantees the inviolability of private communications. Any law that limits this right must pass strict legal scrutiny and demonstrate necessity.
The officials argue the draft law's explanatory memoranda fail to adequately justify why these expansive new powers are needed. They also fail to properly analyze the proposed measures against constitutional protections. This lack of rigorous foundational analysis represents a critical flaw in the legislative preparatory work.
For a law that grants state authorities power to access private communications, this foundational justification is paramount. The watchdogs' statements imply the government must go back and build a much stronger constitutional case for each proposed expansion of power.
The Path Forward for the Legislation
The critical statements from the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman carry substantial weight in Finland's legislative process. While not binding, they create significant political and legal pressure for the government to amend the draft.
Typically, such high-level criticism leads to revisions in the parliamentary committee stage. Lawmakers will now need to grapple with the detailed constitutional objections raised. They must decide whether to amend the bill to address the concerns or attempt to proceed despite the warnings from the state's top legal guardians.
The debate touches on a fundamental tension in modern security policy: the balance between effective intelligence capabilities and the protection of individual privacy and communications secrecy. Finland's constitutional framework sets a high bar for laws that tip this balance.
A Test for Finland's Legal Framework
This legislative process now becomes a test case for how Finland updates its security laws in the digital age. The criticism sets a clear benchmark. Any expansion of surveillance powers must be accompanied by rigorous constitutional analysis and transparent justification.
The government's next move will be closely watched. Will it provide the detailed justification demanded, or will it revise the controversial clauses? The statements from Salminen and RÃ¥man ensure that this technical intelligence law will be debated not just on security grounds, but on the bedrock principle of constitutional rights.