File talk:Trafikdata-en.png

Possible unreliable source, lacking a neutral point of view or needs an update[edit]

Please note this flow-chart is made by an organization called "Stop the FRA law", a loosely knit network of organizations and people well-known for having publicly opposed the FRA law:

About "Stop the FRA law" (in Swedish)

Article on "Stop the FRA law" from Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish)

One of them is Mark Klamberg, here arguing against the law on his blog:

http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2008/08/dubbeltnk-och-nysprk.html

So it may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. If used at all, you should use in-text attribution to the source, as in "according to 'Stoppa FRA-lagen', a Swedish organization opposing the law".

It is also appears that the flow-chart does not take into consideration changes to the law addressing certain privacy concerns, making its use further questionable, as it seems to be lacking a neutral point of view, or alternatively it needs an update. --Gavleson (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which changes to the law, specifically, make this file erroneous? —rybec 07:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure why you keep following me around, questioning everything I do. I guess you don't have much of a life, and are part of the self-appointed Wikipedia police, set to hound and harass all new contributers out of here... I'm sure you think what you're doing is noble, but anyone with a calm head, reviewing my edits and your subsequent reversal of them, would probably come to the conclusion that your behavior is not beneficial to Wikipedia on the whole. People like you are what's wrong with Wikipedia, and why this site is loosing contributers.

Anyway, this graphic is a total mess, as it doesn't conform to regular flowchart standards. So I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to read it. It was created in 31 October, 2008 by a group of people lobbying against the FRA -- prior to the final change in legislation proposed in December 2009; maybe why The Defence Intelligence Court, from which all SIGINT has to be authorized by, isn't mentioned. The Defence Intelligence Comission (SIUN) isn't mentioned either. The fact that the FRA doesn't have any physical access to the signals (SIUN does, and only let the FRA gain access after a court order) is also a very significant omission. Maybe it's even deliberate, when you take into account who the authors are... -- Gavleson (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tveksam källa och neutralitet eller behöver en uppdatering[edit]

Notera att denna grafik har avsändaren "Stoppa FRA-lagen", ett nätverk av av organisationer och privatpersoner som vill avskaffa FRA-lagen:

Om "Stoppa FRA-lagen"

Artikel i SvD om "Stoppa FRA-lagen"

En av dem är Mark Klamberg, som här argumenterar mot lagen på sin blogg:

http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2008/08/dubbeltnk-och-nysprk.html

Så denna grafik följer nog inte de riktlinjer Wikipedia har om trovärdiga källor. Om den används över huvud taget så bör man nog tillskriva grafiken i textform på följande vis: "enligt 'Stoppa FRA-lagen', ett nätverk av av organisationer och privatpersoner som vill avskaffa lagen"

Grafiken verkar dessutom inte redovisa de lagändringar som gjorts för att stärka den personliga integriteten, vilket gör att jag måste ifrågasätta användningen helt och hållet eftersom den tycks sakna en neutral utgångspunkt, alternativt så behövs en uppdatering. --Gavleson (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]