Lapider les corneilles! French Patriot Act faces growing opposition A petition to block France’s controversial new snooping law has topped 100,000 signatures. The French National Assembly is about to fast-track a law which would allow widespread snooping powers. The Projet de Loi Relatif au Renseignement would allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor mobile metadata and …
Your average state used to be perfectly happy to do all this stuff illegally and use "national security" powers to prevent the illegal acts ever being prosecuted. Then they realised that this might lead to the criticism that such state actions had little better justification than terrorism, so they decided they needed a veneer of legality - especially if they were having to coerce commercial third parties. And now it transpires that the great unwashed feel that legally-sanctioned constant intrusion into their daily lives is little better than terrorism too.
There is a blindingly obvious conclusion to draw from that, but I suspect that instead the wheel is simply going to turn full circle.
"Your average state used to be perfectly happy to do all this stuff illegally and use "national security" powers to prevent the illegal acts ever being prosecuted...." Yes, it does appear to be just legal cover for the already-existing FRENCHELON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon).
Oh, sorry shrieking Europeans, I didn't mean to let some light shine under those anti-Yank blinkers! Please do go back to mindlessly assuming your governments are all trop blanche and only The Big Satan is doing the naughty.
Given that there are various information sharing agreements between law enforcement agencies in Europe (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/17/blighty_finally_joins_eu_database_offers_citizens_to_the_panopticon/) would it be possible under this law for a person, say in another EU country, to fall under the suspicion of the French authorities (perhaps after a "suggestion/request" from the police in that jurisdiction that s/he's a wrong'un), and be subject to such surveillance by the French (as the internet knows no boundaries) technical agencies, and the information gleaned from that passed back to the requesting authorities under that information sharing agreement?
Sort of along the lines of suspicion that commentards have voiced elsewhere suggesting that the five eyes agencies use a similar system to get around any domestic restrictions such as not being allowed to surveil within their borders (or similar). If so it could make privacy protections in the EU a race to the bottom.
If so it could make privacy protections in the EU a race to the bottom.
Indeed it already is. What I see is "legalizing" what's already being done. The cases making the media were/are, at least from the media reports, variations of old-fashioned police work. They get a tip (usually an FB post) on someone and then investigate.
I would think that if they want these invasive acts to be approved by the general public, a bit of PR would be involved. Such as, we found via the data collection..... But they don't.
Meta data is loaded with information. With enough,combined with data collected from multitudes of other sources, gives a frighteningly accurate picture of individuals. I have no doubts that with the information each government already has on their respective citizens,that they can and do easily add all the Metra data to those files for each person. And yet,with all that data,stolen or otherwise,our governments have not been able to foil one terrorist plot to stop it in its tracks. There have been many articles on this,and yet,they keep asking for more aaccess. The solution is likely what Snowden suggested, that these security agencies need to focus on defense,and not offense. By keeping us in a less secure position,we are vulnerable to more than just the government.
And yet,with all that data,stolen or otherwise,our governments have not been able to foil one terrorist plot to stop it in its tracks.
To be fair, we don't know what has necessarily been foiled - and trials held in camera make that difficult to know. But you do make a very good point - a concentration on 'offence' through massive surveillance has a tendency to (a) allow government agencies to carry on claiming money for what may well be largely the case of the 'the emperors new underwear' - ably assisted by technology and quasi governmental companies with a vested interest in getting their noses into the trough, (b) allow them to avoid smarter more targeted intelligence gathering and prevention by pointing to the great efforts being made through mass surveillance and (c) carry on justifying their existence through what looks, certainly in the US like entrapment practices with weak minded stooges.
To be fair, we don't know what has necessarily been foiled
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupting-terror-u-s-plot-deserves-scrutiny-skepticism/
I believe the FBI have managed to stop about 20 terrorist plots they themselves created, so that's pretty good...
Sorry Richard but the shoe is on the other foot. The (prior) Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to back down after making the assertion that such surveillance had actually played a signifficant part in catching one of these plots. Actually it was revealed that in every case it was plain old police work that did the job.
Its wording is very broad and includes major industrial and scientific interests of France as being potentially related to terrorism
And of course the likes of the French DGSE would never abuse this would they? Would they?
...<glances in IBMs, Cornings and Texas Instruments direction>...
Oh, wait...
The terrorists want us scared and the government does nothing to quell those fears. Quite the opposite in fact, as they seem to be constantly pumping up the threat of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties and freedoms. And given how much we obsess over such acts of terrorism makes it an attractive option for these terrorists in the first place (No one is going to blow themselves up if it means that the only get a small article in a local paper, but they certainly will if it means that their sacrifice means 24/7 coverage for many years to come)
So in a sense, these governments are aiding and abetting terrorism.
No sense involved. I'd go as far as being complicit. Terrorists win when the citizenry demands that a government "do something!" It almost always triggers an over-response in representative forms of government as they answer to the demands of the most vocal individuals. That triggers an extreme response from the affected population. [There aren't a lot of negative feedback mechanisms in representative governments even on a good day.] Apply, lather, rinse, repeat until it collapses, hopefully to the benefit of the terrorists or their supporters.
What we are seeing is the systematic stripping of those negative feedback mechanisms in response to a bunch of loud-mouthed, unreasonable jerks. Reason is most definitely the first thing stripped.
Indeed. I would actually feel safer if we reverted to pre-9/11 levels of security. A little awareness goes a long way; invasive searches and body-scanners don't do a thing.
I would much rather money was spent to properly train TSA agents on how to spot someone suspicious than machines that can't even detect if someone had taped several pounds of C4 to their body in a way that made it look like fat...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
