Context: This bill would mean implementing collecting all metadata of communications "crossing the border" (in practice most of Norwegian traffic), and that "service providers" (undefined) would have make unencrypted communications available if they can. The bill was about out military/foreign intelligence service. They would also combine this with "metadata" from other sources, as well as unspecified data from unspecified sources. They would be able to search in the metadata-storage via court-order. Content data could also be collected via court-order.

From memory:

- Members of the committee kept stating that this bill would provide us security (without arguing how/why)

- Members of the committee kept ignoring rights-based arguments re: privacy from orgs like our DPA, Amnesty, the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights, Norwegian Society of Graduate Technical and Scientific Professionals, etc.

- Members of the committee kept suggesting that the bill would let us protect ourselves against the types of attacks we've seen on large public (petroleum, health) services

- Member of the committee kept harping about how this bill could protect us against identity-theft, hacking by extranational threat actors, etc. (despite obviously being out of legal scope)

- Member of the committee arguing with consulted bodies (incl. organizations of editors, journalists) that source protection was not about democracy or the public, but about the individual

- Comments from our Minister of Defense like: "This is not mass surveillance; It is mass storage" (mirroring arguments from Europe) and "Source protection should not be something threats to the nation can hide behind"

- Top politicians conflating privacy with securing against external threats throughout debate, and claiming that we had to remember that the Norwegian state is not "the bad guy"

- The government stating that without this bill, we'd be a less attractive collaborative partner internationally, and that most other countries have this sort of practice

- The Minister claiming that the external intelligence service needs these tools to be able to do their job at all, casting doubt on the existing of a chilling effect, claiming the ends justify the means...