Lex Nokia furore fuelled further by minister´s strip-search remark
|
National Coalition Party chairman, Minister of Finance Jyrki Katainen, says that he is not familiar with the wording of the bill for data protection of electronic communications, also known as Lex Nokia. Katainen nevertheless insists that he supports the initiative.
Debate over the controversial bill took a new turn on Thursday when Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén said in an interview in Thursday’s edition of the Tampere newspaper Aamulehti that an employer currently has the right to order a strip-search of an employee if there is suspicion that the employee is leaking company secrets.
Later, after being publicly contradicted by legal experts, Lindén conceded that employers have no such right, and said that her comment was an attempt at humour.
Katainen was asked in Parliament on Thursday if he thought that an employee had the right to demand that an employee disrobe.
“I don’t know that legislation. Lindén probably knows how to answer it best, because she made the comment”, he said.
“One would have to know the entire bill. I don’t know what this is about, and I don’t know what has been written about it in the newspaper”, Katainen added.
He also said that it is quite clear that it is not possible to order people to take their clothes off at workplaces.
Katainen saw no need for an apology. “Surely, nobody has been hurt here.”
He also said that he stands behind the proposal for the data protection law, just like the whole government. But does he still support Suvi Lindén?
“Naturally. Of course her staying on is in the hands of the National Coalition Party and certainly, she has the right to continue”, Katainen said.
Lindén herself retreated somewhat from her statement, but did not deny making it.
“Well, naturally, an employer cannot require an employee to disrobe”, Lindén said.
She described her comments as hyperbole and an attempt at humour. She insisted that her words did not result from ignorance.
“I am familiar with the legislation of my own area of administration, and I especially know the law on electronic security”, she emphasised.
She says that she was describing different ways that employers have available to them to prevent the leaking of company secrets. “It includes camera surveillance and access control, monitoring the log information of computers, monitoring copies, and monitoring the use of flash drives.”
“We have agreed with Minister of Justice Tuija Brax (Green) that along with the Data Protection Ombudsman, we will examine the impact of the law after a year.”
Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) emphasised that it is important to be careful in setting the rights of officials and employers. He did not take issue with the Lindén’s controversial statement.
“I don’t want to overreact. I assume that after the clarifications there will be no more confusion. It is clear that the rights of the employer do not extend to that level”, Vanhanen said.
The Prime Minister stands behind the Lex Nokia bill.
“We must not be naive, when our well-being is based on intellectual property and patents, which exist in electronic form. We must not imagine that corporate espionage would not take place in Finland. It is good that there are good preventative measures that make it as difficult as possible.”
Debate over the controversial bill took a new turn on Thursday when Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén said in an interview in Thursday’s edition of the Tampere newspaper Aamulehti that an employer currently has the right to order a strip-search of an employee if there is suspicion that the employee is leaking company secrets.
Later, after being publicly contradicted by legal experts, Lindén conceded that employers have no such right, and said that her comment was an attempt at humour.
Katainen was asked in Parliament on Thursday if he thought that an employee had the right to demand that an employee disrobe.
“I don’t know that legislation. Lindén probably knows how to answer it best, because she made the comment”, he said.
“One would have to know the entire bill. I don’t know what this is about, and I don’t know what has been written about it in the newspaper”, Katainen added.
He also said that it is quite clear that it is not possible to order people to take their clothes off at workplaces.
Katainen saw no need for an apology. “Surely, nobody has been hurt here.”
He also said that he stands behind the proposal for the data protection law, just like the whole government. But does he still support Suvi Lindén?
“Naturally. Of course her staying on is in the hands of the National Coalition Party and certainly, she has the right to continue”, Katainen said.
Lindén herself retreated somewhat from her statement, but did not deny making it.
“Well, naturally, an employer cannot require an employee to disrobe”, Lindén said.
She described her comments as hyperbole and an attempt at humour. She insisted that her words did not result from ignorance.
“I am familiar with the legislation of my own area of administration, and I especially know the law on electronic security”, she emphasised.
She says that she was describing different ways that employers have available to them to prevent the leaking of company secrets. “It includes camera surveillance and access control, monitoring the log information of computers, monitoring copies, and monitoring the use of flash drives.”
“We have agreed with Minister of Justice Tuija Brax (Green) that along with the Data Protection Ombudsman, we will examine the impact of the law after a year.”
Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) emphasised that it is important to be careful in setting the rights of officials and employers. He did not take issue with the Lindén’s controversial statement.
“I don’t want to overreact. I assume that after the clarifications there will be no more confusion. It is clear that the rights of the employer do not extend to that level”, Vanhanen said.
The Prime Minister stands behind the Lex Nokia bill.
“We must not be naive, when our well-being is based on intellectual property and patents, which exist in electronic form. We must not imagine that corporate espionage would not take place in Finland. It is good that there are good preventative measures that make it as difficult as possible.”
Helsingin Sanomat