Slashdot Mirror
France Broadens Surveillance Powers; Wider Scope Than NSA
krakman writes "With the NSA disclosures, French media was 'outraged'. Yet they appear to be worse than the NSA, with a new law that codifies standard practice and provides for no judicial oversight while allowing electronic surveillance for a broad range of purposes, including 'national security,' the protection of France's 'scientific and economic potential' and prevention of ;terrorism' or 'criminality.' The government argues that the law, passed last week with little debate as part of a routine military spending bill, which takes effect in 2015, does not expand intelligence powers. Rather, officials say, those powers have been in place for years, and the law creates rules where there had been none, notably with regard to real-time location tracking. French intelligence agencies have little experience publicly justifying their practices. Parliamentary oversight did not begin until 2007."
The question isn't what the 4th Amendment says, but what does it mean, how does it apply legally under the given circumstances? There are many searches that the courts have found that require no warrant, boarding a plane is among them, along with sobriety checkpoints, and border crossings. Beyond that, there is the issue of Article II powers and how they play into this. Napolitano takes no notice of this issue, but the courts have, and it has a role, not to mention actions by Congress involving Article II questions.
You many notice that "Judge" Napolitano is no longer sitting on the bench, so he can spin whatever fanciful theory he cares to. The question is, would it hold up before a court? I think the answer is "No" in his case, otherwise he would be moving a suit forward on his theory. He apparently knows this, and that it would be political suicide since he would be shown to be engaging in nonsense, legally. Politically it's very nice.
But, if you like Napolitano, you may like this one too. Unfortunately he gets the question of law wrong, overlooking this document which he chooses to ignore for some reason, and it is highly relevant.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There is no evidence that I can think of that suggests that the government is using the intelligence agencies to monitor political speech and distribute that to the detriment of political opposition. It is a fantasy.
Do you have any evidence of the prosecution listening in on any attorney-client conversations for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the trial? The only remotely similar cases that I'm aware of are a small handful of instances involving terrorism prosecutions at Gitmo, and I don't believe that the prosecution was involved, IIRC.
You post is more "what if" than actual problem.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell