In the digital era, when security agencies world-wide have been challenging basic democratic principles with massive data gathering, Finland has had a different approach: it has conducted no large-scale surveillance of citizens’ online activities. Now, however, the country is planning such a vast expansion of state surveillance that the constitution itself must be altered. The present article examines one key point in this legislative process to see how the new surveillance measures are argued for and criticized, and how the differing points of view are negotiated to ultimately enable political action. Drawing particularly on Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) approach to argumentation in political discourse, the article finds that surveillance is promoted as essential for national security, and criticized especially for its economic risks, consequences for civil rights and questionable effectiveness. Despite this range of critical perspectives, only economic considerations become a topic of extended deliberation.

中文翻译：

---

后斯诺登时代的数字监控立法谈判

在数字时代，当世界各地的安全机构通过大量数据收集挑战基本的民主原则时，芬兰采取了不同的方法：它没有对公民的在线活动进行大规模监视。然而，现在该国正计划如此大规模地扩大国家监督，以至于必须修改宪法本身。本文考察了这一立法过程中的一个关键点，以了解如何支持和批评新的监视措施，以及如何协商不同的观点以最终促成政治行动。文章特别借鉴了 Fairclough 和 Fairclough (2012) 在政治话语中的论证方法，发现监视被宣传为对国家安全至关重要，并因其经济风险而受到批评，公民权利的后果和可疑的有效性。尽管有如此多的批判性观点，但只有经济方面的考虑才成为需要深入讨论的话题。