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."

9 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Support Freedom Box! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Re:Islam by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather take the chance of mass surveillance being misused

    This sort of attitude is why we're rapidly losing freedom and privacy in some areas.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  3. Re:Islam by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, jackboots feel pretty much the same whether they're European or Muslim. Neither 'side' has a particularly defensible history. The harder question to answer is how effective a surveillance society actually is. Does monitoring every phone call, watching every street corner help you much?

    My guess, given the lack of examples the NSA / FBI / CIA have trotted out is that the answer is 'no'. I'd rather take the chance that somebody will 'slip through' rather than live in a police society. Even counting up every terrorist action everywhere, one doesn't create a particularly dangerous environment. If you want to be rational about this, you would first ban cars, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, knives, kitchen utensils and cell phones. They are arguably more dangerous than 'terrorists'.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. European Union flag by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This summary displays the European Union flag

    As a french citizen, I am getting more and more upset to see the European flag used instead of France's one for stories about France. 10 years ago I was very fond of the EU, but now I realized EU is not a democracy and I am not a EU citizen. It is quite the contrary, as EU project is to destroy democracy.

    I wish Slashdot could add a logo for France, even something full of clichés, it will make me more comfortable.

  5. There are no "good guy" countries here by wumbler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think what we have learned is that given the opportunity, no country's intelligence/police/security apparatus is truly more ethical than that of other countries. There's a huge difference between cheap, public words spoken by politicians and what's really going on behind the scenes. If they have the technical option, they will collect and spy and monitor whatever they can.

    The NSA gets a bad rap, since (a) it has access to most information and thus is most scary and (b) in the US there is the constitution, which at least in principle should curtail certain government activities, giving critics something to use in their fight. In other countries there often aren't the constitutional documents, which aim to codify personal freedoms and liberties in the same way. Therefore, in the US the surveillance opponents at least have a document in their support that they can point at, while the same people in other countries often have no such thing. In that respect, the surveillance debate in the US could be more forceful with at least some ammunition for the opponents. In this regard, other countries aren't that lucky.

    However, in the end it's all academic: Surveillance/intelligence agencies will do whatever they damn well feel like doing. Whatever local laws they have will matter little. These are agencies that have secrecy baked into their DNA. They know - for the most part - to keep their activities away from the public and also the politicians for that matter.

    Pass whatever laws you want, it won't matter anymore.

  6. Re:Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We could start with the entire process of getting on an airplane. Due to my 4th amendment rights, I should be able to board a plane without being searched by a government agent unless there is reasonable suspicion that I'm committing a crime. If the airport's or airline's private security wishes to search me, that's between me and them as private entities.

    There's also the 100 mile zone where the Department of Homeland Security claims they don't need warrants for searches.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/

  7. Re:Goddamnit by schnell · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry. Knowing the French, they will just use these expanded surveillance powers searching for and punishing users of forbidden "franglais" terms. Violators will be captured by SWAT teams wearing stylish berets and ascots, then locked in solitary confinement to read "The Little Prince" over and over again for as long as it takes until the next time the jailers go on strike.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  8. Re:And what about the Catholics. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If say 30 -50% of them profess their loyalty to the pope before the country then do you profile them?

    That's not comparable. The "ummah" isn't a person or even an institution, it means "community." What the racist fuck has lost his head over is the equivalent of someone saying he's 'loyal' to his fellow christians no matter what country they live in.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Re:Islam by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, there is no actual freedom being lost then when boarding an airplane since you are still free to travel.

    Just like freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon if you force people into a free speech zone; they're still allowed to speak, after all! Let's apply this logic to an entire city: If you live in a certain city, you sign away your fourth amendment rights and give the government permission to search you whenever they please. Don't like it? Move. You still have that freedom, so it's okay!

    The searches for boarding an airplane go back about 40-50 years.

    That's utterly irrelevant, and the TSA wasn't molesting people 40-50 years ago.

    They are completely legal and don't infringe on your 4th amendment rights.

    If you need a court to tell you how to think, then you're nothing more than a mindless drone. It's sad how people in a country that was founded on a distrust of government put so much trust in the government and even allow it to control how they think.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!