Breaking Down the "Lex Nokia" Debate

In a nutshell: The argument for:

Industry and business leaders around the world have long said that industrial espionage and the leaking of company secrets are the biggest threats to companies today. Although it is illegal for another company to use or benefit from illicitly gained knowledge, it is extremely difficult to prove and prosecute a company for this.

(YLE Uutiset grafiikka) And so Finnish companies have long pushed for legislation to allow them to more strictly monitor the communications traffic of their employees. The Confederation of Finnish Industries says that the changes would clarify a great deal of grey area in the current data protection law, and clearly outline what employers can and cannot do.

The bill would allow employers to see information on the recipients and senders of an employee's emails - provided the emails were made with company-provided e-mail services.

The Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK) says a new law is called for because there have been too many loose interpretations pertaining to corporate data protection.

"For the first time, the leaking of trade secrets would be explicitly prohibited by law. The law would adopt precise rules that don't exist now," Mikko Nyyssölä, Senior Legal Advisor of Labour Affairs at the EK, tells YLE News.

Nyyssölä says that although the proposed investigations into employee emails are at employers' own discretion, a mandatory reporting mechanism prevents abuse of the system.

"The Data Protection Ombudsman must be informed when employees' emails are monitored. However this does not apply to single cases that are part of broader investigations. A written report would be handed to employees after their emails have been looked into," explains Nyyssölä.

The bill would not allow companies to read e-mail message contents or listen to phone conversations. Proponents of the bill say that the company owns the e-mail it provides to employees, and therefore has jurisdiction to monitor this information. They also feel that it may be the most effective way to stop the selling of business secrets to competitors.

Nyyssölä refutes claims that the bill gives employers more rights than the police.

"Interaction between an employer and an employee is a relationship between two private entities. This relationship differs greatly from that of encounters between state authorities and citizens," he says.

In a nutshell: The argument against:

Opponents of the bill claim it violates privacy laws and may be unconstitutional. They argue that the bill would give employers more far-reaching powers than the police, who have to obtain a warrant in order to gather the same kind of information.

“Naturally, these kinds of methods cause consternation. Considering that they have been so difficult for police to obtain, how can they now be ready to expand them to a private entity so easily?” asks Deputy Chief Tero Kurenmaa of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Kurenmaa also noted that companies would not be compelled to report on the results of any investigations to the police in cases of industrial espionage. He is concerned that police might fail to get information they need concerning criminal activities.

In any case, since the stealing of intellectual property is illegal, investigations should be conducted by police, says the NBI.

Opponents also say that the risk of unnecessary snooping is too high, since the employer would not have to prove to a judge - as police do - that this type of surveillance is necessary.

The Electronic Frontier Finland, an electronic rights advocacy group, says that although the existing data protection law needs clarification, the proposed bill is rife with loopholes. For example, the group notes, the bill does not just affect workplaces, but "would give any organisation that provides Internet services (libraries, universities, Parliament, etc) the right to monitor users."

They also say that the law is not restricted to e-mails, but includes any IP-based online activity, such as web-surfing.

Critics also challenge the efficacy of the bill, saying that corporate spies would never use their company e-mail accounts for making back-room deals for industrial secrets.

The Political Breakdown

Eduskunta on aloittanut Lex Nokian käsittelyn (YLE) In general, the Centre Party and the National Coalition have been more supportive of the bill, while the Social Democratic Party and the Left Alliance are opposed, but cracks have appeared in most parties' opinions.

Nokia's Role in Lex Nokia

The country's largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, quoted an unnamed source involved in drawing up the bill who claimed that Nokia had threatened the government over the bill. According to the source, Finland's biggest company said it would re-locate its headquarters to another country unless the changes the EK was lobbying for were passed by Parliament.

Both Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen and Nokia Director of Communications Arja Suominen deny that any such threat was made. Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén also said she was not aware that any such ultimatum had been given.

Speaking in a YLE interview programme, Vanhanen said such a threat might have been made at “a lower level” but he insisted no information had reached government ears.

But after the denials were publicly made, one government official and one union official came forth and confirmed that Nokia had threatened to leave if the bill failed to pass in Parliament.

"During the preparation process of the law, there were threats made that Nokia would leave Finland if the law didn't pass," Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Markku Wallin, told the daily Helsingin Sanomat.

The director of the Union of Salaried Employees, Antti Rinne, also told the daily that he had heard of the threat.

Chancellor of Justice Jaakko Jonkka told the daily Aamulehti that any suggestion of wrongdoing should be taken up by the police - but he also noted that Nokia has the right to bring a lawsuit if it considers the Helsingin Sanomat reports defamatory.