FRA: How was the proposal created?

The first issue is how the proposal was created. How it was reviewed, and what consensus exists (or not exists) behind it. Aftonbladet write today (in Swedish). It explains how people early in the process where swapped between Ministry of Defence and National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA). This of course increase the ability for the agency to influence the Ministry to write proposals that are in favor of the agency. In this case we talk about a play between an investigation (chaired by Owe Wiktorin that I by the way know very well, and trust), the agency and the Ministry.

The article in Aftonbladet also describe a disagreement already within the government. In this case between Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence. As an advisor to the IT Minister (Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication), I must say I unfortunately see a lot of this. That would by itself not be bad, if it was not the case that the disagreements are discovered and laid out on the table very very late in the process.

Disagreements exists, and I am even prepared on saying that they should exist. But they should also be resolved. If proposals are reviewed very late, under time related pressure (or budget pressure), the resolution of the disagreements are not good.

On this page you can see how a proposal is moved through the government. The key step is what is described as Draft Proposal on that page. That the official responsible should discuss it with …and other relevant departments at the ministry. This is in Swedish called Gemensamberedning. I have seen examples where proposals that people disagree on have been discussed less between the Ministries instead of more.

Of course most documents are discussed exactly the right way, cooperation and nice outcomes. And I think it gets better and better. But the government is definitely not the matrix organisation that is more normal in the commercial world. It is though more effective in producing decisions and papers though. The problem is, once again, when there are disagreements.

Disagreements need to be ironed out as early as possible. They can of course not be ironed out before they are detected, and because of that early communication between Ministries is absolutely essential. Having first real discussions during the Joint drafting procedure is too late. Far too late. But this has happened. At that point in time, almost only non-substantial text changes can be made, as the overall ideas are already decided upon. Budget issues have been calculated etc.

We have similar problems in the IETF, and I guess any organisation that try to work out agreements have similar problems. Or they have not detected they have the problems… Overall, as I said above, the government of Sweden is very very effective, and I am impressed with the number of decisions that are made. Specifically given the lack of proper / tailored IT based tools. Just a bit of more early cooperation should though make things so much better.

And I think this wiretap legislation is, as the article in Aftonbladet describe, just one example of a few that is of bad quality because of lack of coordination and cooperation between the Ministries.