The door and its surrounding, is an important part of all buildings. It often amount to a significant part of buildings total costs. The more demands of functions the largerdoes the costs grow. The purpose of this report is to analyze those demands and how to fulfill them. Another purpose is to examine of which reasons the cost grow and how to avoid it inthe best possible way. The study will be performed in collaboration with Bjerking AB. To define the demands a literature study will also be performed. The essential part however will be interviews with persons with different employment regarding doors. The literature study shows the demanding are very different depending on several aspects. Those could be such things as the number of people passing and how the building is meant to be used. The results of the interviews shows doors and their surroundings are very complicated. The reasons are many. One of them is that persons are limited to their own employment and don’t have the knowledge to see the full context. Increased communication is a solution to that problem among others. With increased knowledge it’s possible to select better and cheaper solutions. Such solutions is about both choosing products and planning buildings design. There seem to be possible to develop doors and its surroundings in several ways. The interviewed persons often mention the door closer as one product they would likedevelopment in. It’s important it closes hard enough but it makes the door heavy to open since both forces often are equal. The problem today in developing better products is to find a participant willing to paythe cost the development requires.

<p>The purpose of this paper is to explore what objects that can be seized and how the management of a seizure should be conducted. Ability to take enforcement against an individual should be carefully weighed against the rights and freedoms that exist. Seizure is one of the various restraints that exist, and the regulation on which they appear is mainly in the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 27^th. To be able to apply coercive measures, it is fundamental prerequisite that a criminal investigation is initiated, but there exist some significant exceptions to this. There are also rules about who has the right to provide for the seizure, the decision can be taken by a prosecutor, an investigator, a police officer or, in special cases, the court. The purpose of a seizure is mainly to secure the subject of a criminal investigation, to secure objects that have been arrogated or to secure future forfeiture. Therefore it is only possible to seize objects that are relevant to a criminal investigation, and it is only movable property such as written documents or electronic objects that can be seized. Items that have been seized should be handled in accordance with the laws that exist. A protocol shall be established and supervision shall be exercised over the seizure and a seizure should end when it is no longer relevant to the criminal investigation. The regulation has recently changed and that created new improved opportunities, but despite that, the area is complex and constantly evolving technology makes it difficult.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>This thesis takes its starting point in the 27 Chapter 1, section 1 of the Swedish code of judicial procedure, where the following is found:</p><p>“objects reasonably presumed important to a criminal investigation or taken from a person through a criminal act or subject to criminal forfeiture may be seized”</p><p>In this thesis we have investigated what kinds of problems occur when the seized object is part of an investigation of IT-related criminality. We have used methodological investigations of Swedish laws, legal usage, and the preliminary work with laws. Further have three interviews been made with different actors affected by or involved in seize of objects. These persons were a police officer, a public prosecutor, and a person whose object has been seized.</p><p>The result we present is that there exist three kinds of problems related to objects that are seized within the demarcation of this study. The problems can be formal, and related to the Swedish laws; the problem can also be technical, where e.g. encryption can make the seized object impossible to understand or interpret; and the problem can also be humanly related.</p><p>The conclusion is that the seize of objects, that are IT-related in some way, is a challenge for the Swedish judical system.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>Denna uppsats tar sin utgångspunkt i 7 kap 1§ rättegångsbalken.</p><p>"Föremål, som skäligen kan antagas äga betydelse för utredning om brott eller vara genom brott någon avhänt eller på grund av brott förverkat, må tagas i beslag."</p><p>Vi har undersökt vilka problem som blir aktuella vid beslagtagande av egendom och gjort en huvudsaklig avgränsning mot IT-relaterade beslag. Dels har rättssamhället ett intresse av att utreda brott, dels har den enskilde medborgaren en rättighet att inte bli kränkt, och sedan måste hänsyn tas till tredje man. Vi har intervjuat tre olika medverkande i ett beslag som görs med stöd av 7 kap 1§ rättegångsbalken, vilka är åklagaren, polisen och en som drabbats av ett beslag.</p><p>Vidare har vi tagit del av några rättsfall för att se vilka olika problem som kan bli aktuella. Vi redovisar t ex det i media mycket uppmärksammade fallet om fildelningssajten Pirate Bay, samt fallet med TV4-journalisten och juristen Trond Sefastsson. I fallet Pirate Bay var det tredje man som ansåg sig drabbats och i TV4-journalistens fall, ansåg Sefastsson sig ha material som var källskyddat på den beslagtagna datorn.</p><p>Vi har också uppmärksammat ett fall där polisen har återskapat sms-meddelanden som blev en tung del i bevisningen.</p><p>När vi tittat närmare på barnpornografisk verksamhet kan brottets grad urskiljas genom att bla se på mängden bilder. Mängden bilder påverkar straffets omfattning. Använder en misstänkt brottsling t ex sig av kryptering och lösenordsfiler så kan solen kallna innan polisen ens är i närheten av att knäcka koden.</p><p>Vi har även läst och redovisat några aktuella utlåtanden från Justitieombudsmannen och Justitiekanslern. T ex skriver JK i ett beslut den 19 december 2007 angående fallet Trond Sefastsson att det inte inleder någon förundersökning mot efterforskningsbeslutet. Hela beslutet presenteras i en bilaga.</p><p>Vi menar att det finns tre olika sorters problem vid beslag: Formella, mänskliga och tekniska, där vi ser det tekniska problemet som det svåraste att komma till rätta med.</p><p>Rättsväsendet gör vissa försök att minska problem vid beslag, t ex har Domstolsverket under 2007 startat ett projekt med en domarskola för att höja utbildningskvaliteten på domare. Regeringen har för avsikt att tillsätta en utredning för att se över polisens möjlighet till att få ta del av Internet användares IP-adresser.</p>

This thesis takes its starting point in the 27 Chapter 1, section 1 of the Swedish code of judicial procedure, where the following is found: “objects reasonably presumed important to a criminal investigation or taken from a person through a criminal act or subject to criminal forfeiture may be seized” In this thesis we have investigated what kinds of problems occur when the seized object is part of an investigation of IT-related criminality. We have used methodological investigations of Swedish laws, legal usage, and the preliminary work with laws. Further have three interviews been made with different actors affected by or involved in seize of objects. These persons were a police officer, a public prosecutor, and a person whose object has been seized. The result we present is that there exist three kinds of problems related to objects that are seized within the demarcation of this study. The problems can be formal, and related to the Swedish laws; the problem can also be technical, where e.g. encryption can make the seized object impossible to understand or interpret; and the problem can also be humanly related. The conclusion is that the seize of objects, that are IT-related in some way, is a challenge for the Swedish judical system. / Sammanfattning Denna uppsats tar sin utgångspunkt i 7 kap 1§ rättegångsbalken. "Föremål, som skäligen kan antagas äga betydelse för utredning om brott eller vara genom brott någon avhänt eller på grund av brott förverkat, må tagas i beslag." Vi har undersökt vilka problem som blir aktuella vid beslagtagande av egendom och gjort en huvudsaklig avgränsning mot IT-relaterade beslag. Dels har rättssamhället ett intresse av att utreda brott, dels har den enskilde medborgaren en rättighet att inte bli kränkt, och sedan måste hänsyn tas till tredje man. Vi har intervjuat tre olika medverkande i ett beslag som görs med stöd av 7 kap 1§ rättegångsbalken, vilka är åklagaren, polisen och en som drabbats av ett beslag. Vidare har vi tagit del av några rättsfall för att se vilka olika problem som kan bli aktuella. Vi redovisar t ex det i media mycket uppmärksammade fallet om fildelningssajten Pirate Bay, samt fallet med TV4-journalisten och juristen Trond Sefastsson. I fallet Pirate Bay var det tredje man som ansåg sig drabbats och i TV4-journalistens fall, ansåg Sefastsson sig ha material som var källskyddat på den beslagtagna datorn. Vi har också uppmärksammat ett fall där polisen har återskapat sms-meddelanden som blev en tung del i bevisningen. När vi tittat närmare på barnpornografisk verksamhet kan brottets grad urskiljas genom att bla se på mängden bilder. Mängden bilder påverkar straffets omfattning. Använder en misstänkt brottsling t ex sig av kryptering och lösenordsfiler så kan solen kallna innan polisen ens är i närheten av att knäcka koden. Vi har även läst och redovisat några aktuella utlåtanden från Justitieombudsmannen och Justitiekanslern. T ex skriver JK i ett beslut den 19 december 2007 angående fallet Trond Sefastsson att det inte inleder någon förundersökning mot efterforskningsbeslutet. Hela beslutet presenteras i en bilaga. Vi menar att det finns tre olika sorters problem vid beslag: Formella, mänskliga och tekniska, där vi ser det tekniska problemet som det svåraste att komma till rätta med. Rättsväsendet gör vissa försök att minska problem vid beslag, t ex har Domstolsverket under 2007 startat ett projekt med en domarskola för att höja utbildningskvaliteten på domare. Regeringen har för avsikt att tillsätta en utredning för att se över polisens möjlighet till att få ta del av Internet användares IP-adresser.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what objects that can be seized and how the management of a seizure should be conducted. Ability to take enforcement against an individual should be carefully weighed against the rights and freedoms that exist. Seizure is one of the various restraints that exist, and the regulation on which they appear is mainly in the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 27th. To be able to apply coercive measures, it is fundamental prerequisite that a criminal investigation is initiated, but there exist some significant exceptions to this. There are also rules about who has the right to provide for the seizure, the decision can be taken by a prosecutor, an investigator, a police officer or, in special cases, the court. The purpose of a seizure is mainly to secure the subject of a criminal investigation, to secure objects that have been arrogated or to secure future forfeiture. Therefore it is only possible to seize objects that are relevant to a criminal investigation, and it is only movable property such as written documents or electronic objects that can be seized. Items that have been seized should be handled in accordance with the laws that exist. A protocol shall be established and supervision shall be exercised over the seizure and a seizure should end when it is no longer relevant to the criminal investigation. The regulation has recently changed and that created new improved opportunities, but despite that, the area is complex and constantly evolving technology makes it difficult.

No description available.

No description available.