Norway's Foreign Agent Law
How bad are the new foreign influence laws?
Despite the many objections, on May 31 Norway passed legislation prohibiting participation in foreign influence operations, which went into effect on July 1st.
I will be taking a careful look at the new laws and discuss their implications. Below follows the new additions to Norway’s criminal code as retrieved from lovdata.no:
While Norwegian is my mother tongue and I also speak English well, I asked Grok (an AI by xAI) to provide a translation to ensure impartiality. Here is what he came back with:
Section 130. Influence from Foreign Intelligence
A person who, on behalf of or in agreement with a foreign intelligence actor, engages in activities intended to influence decisions or the general formation of public opinion, where such activities can harm significant societal interests, shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years.
Section 130a. Severe Influence from Foreign Intelligence
A serious violation of Section 130 shall be punished with imprisonment for up to 10 years. In determining whether the violation is serious, particular emphasis shall be placed on:
a. the nature and extent of the violation,
b. whether the offender, by virtue of their position, enjoys particular trust,
c. whether the violation is particularly harmful to society for other reasons, and
d. whether the offender has obtained a significant gain for themselves or others.
The laws by themselves are quite vague, but the Department of Justice explains their intended interpretation in the report where they were proposed. Having read through this report I will give a summary in Q&A format:
Who’s a foreign intelligence actor?
Anyone who de facto directs covert influence operations for a foreign government, examples given are troll factories and seemingly independent media outlets that are secretly state-controlled.
What’s meant by “on behalf of”?
The amount of contact between the parties, whether they were paid, to what extent the material came “pre-packaged” and the degree of coordination will all be considered in determining if the accused acted “on behalf of or after an agreement with” a foreign intelligence actor as defined in the law.
What are significant societal interests?
Examples of significant societal interests mentioned in the report are:
National Security
“Enlightened discourse”
Election integrity, i.e. affecting the outcome or confidence in the procedures.
Trust in public institutions and certain private entities such as political parties and the media
Public safety, threatened by for example riots and “polarization”
Must disinformation be involved?
No, dissemination of material obtained via hacking is specifically mentioned as a case where the content itself might be truthful, but still illegitimate. However, spreading hacked material is still legal, as long as it isn’t done “on behalf of or in agreement with” a foreign intelligence actor.
When can surveillance be used?
The new laws also gives Norway’s security service permission to utilize covert surveillance while investigating suspected violations of section 130. This includes methods such as monitoring a suspect’s online activity, secretly searching their home and placing a tracker on their car.
The service is further granted access to employ both preventive and preemptive surveillance, but only when they have reason to suspect a severe violation is imminent or is being planned.
So, how bad are the new foreign influence laws? They are fortunately a rather weak blend.
The report repeatedly reaffirms that the laws only criminalizes collusion with foreign intelligence, not a shared “narrative” or “theme”, but we’ll see how firmly that distinction is upheld.
The most dangerous part is the ability to use surveillance before a crime has been committed, the risk is that this will grow to encompass people who aren’t yet planning to participate in a foreign influence operation, but are viewed as potential recruits.
This could create a situation where, when a major controversy hits, all the large influencers on the Populist side are put under surveillance. Unlikely with things as they are, but something to watch out for.
Anyway, I don’t see the point of these laws. Our government influences its own citizens all the time, saying nobody else is allowed to is hypocritical, especially given the West easily out spends its competitors.
Stay in touch by following me on X.