In the United States, the worst data leak in years was revealed last week. Documents classified as classified by the US Department of Defense were leaked onto the Internet. What would a similar leak mean in Finland?
In this story, the assistant professor of criminal law answers the key questions Tatu Hyttinen from the University of Turku.
1. If secret documents concerning the defense forces or NATO were leaked from the Ministry of Defense of Finland, what kind of sanctions would result for the leaker?
Leaks of documents related to national defense are very critical in all countries. There are many sections in the Finnish Criminal Code for situations like this. The most serious crime of treason is provided for in Chapter 12 of the Criminal Code.
Sensitive information can be leaked for various reasons. The reason may be to benefit a foreign country or to harm one’s own country. These can be processed as different crimes, such as espionage or aggravated espionage, where the penalty scale already goes to life. There are sections, and they are very carefully protected so that confidential information related to the defense forces is not leaked.
2. Why are leaks revealed relatively rarely?
Treasonous crimes or the leaking of very sensitive military information are not common, but not completely exceptional either.
I would assume that in Finland and other countries leaks are not brought to the public, but they are tried to disappear and bury them until the last, if that is at all possible. It is not in the interest of the authorities to start a criminal process and make the leak public. Even if the trials were secret, the matter would be discussed in the media. Leaks are tried to be managed in a way other than in public, if possible.
If a leak is detected and its effects can be minimized afterwards, then of course efforts are made to reduce or completely eliminate the effect. It makes no sense to make your own vulnerabilities public.
3. Does the US leak in any way compare to the case concerning Helsingin Sanomat’s Tikkakoski relay test center?
Compared to the Tikkakoski case, two differences must be made. In the disclosure of the security secret, it was a matter of journalists who received information to be kept secret publishing the information. Here, the perspective of freedom of speech comes into play very strongly. The journalists were accused of publishing classified, i.e. secret, material in a magazine story.
The second line is the person who actually leaked the information. No freedom of speech perspective entitles a person who has access to classified information to leak.
Read more about the case of the communication test center in this article
4. How many people in Finland have access to secret defense documents?
The more confidential the information, the fewer people have access to it. Highly encrypted information can only be accessed by the top management of the state and the defense forces. For example, members of the Defense Committee have the right to access information that is highly classified.
When talking about defense administration authorities or soldiers, strictly encrypted information is handled in a very small circle. It is known from the Tikkakoski case that it was possible to narrow down the group from which the perpetrator could be found quite quickly, because only a small group had access to leaked information.
I am quite convinced that in Finland the risks have been minimized so that line workers do not have access or at least the opportunity to take possession of encrypted information. In the United States, the materials can be so large that it can be more difficult to narrow down the group of people.
5. Does NATO membership change the classification of classified documents in Finland?
NATO does not bring anything new to this legislatively. We also have fairly new intelligence laws. They are pretty much in place, and I don’t think NATO brings anything new to them. Legislation already prohibits the dissemination of all sensitive military information. In my opinion, joining NATO does not suddenly require any changes to secrecy legislation.