The bill lists the tasks of the various intelligence services, ranging from “prevention of terrorism” “the defense of economic, industrial and scientific” of France.
It allows services to intercept telephone conversations or computer content and legalizes the use of surveillance techniques tapping, geolocation, microphones, cameras … Very challenged : the use of Imsi-catchers, these sensors which allow “siphon” communications. They cast a wide net and can capture all phones in a given area.
The ISPs are also alarmed by the development of analysis tools automatic (algorithm) for detecting a “terrorist threat” . Matignon sure that everything will be “box” . Authorizations will be given by the Prime Minister for a limited period after consulting the National Control Commission intelligence techniques (CNCTR), which will have four judges, four parliamentary and expert.
FOR / AGAINST
To: “The freedoms will be better protected”
Jean-Jacques Urvoas. PS deputy Finistère, rapporteur of the bill.
Is This text a response to the January attacks?
Its genesis is older. At the beginning of the legislature, Manuel Valls, then Minister of the Interior, had asked for a diagnosis of faults that led to the Mérah case. By controlling this mission, I found that our intelligence services had little legal means. We then recommended to provide them with a legal framework for the protection of individual freedoms and increasing their efficiency.
In the name of the fight against terrorism, does not he give extortionate means to intelligence services?
The January tragedy gave visibility to this text which is wrongly presented as a response to terrorism. Yet it is just as much to protect our interests against economic predators or defend our foreign policy options. Everyone will gain. Citizens because their freedoms will be better protected by law, services because their action will be secure and the rule of law for the secret may be the mask of arbitrariness.
N ‘ there he was not a risk of generalized surveillance society?
Most of the 172 amendments adopted by the Law Commission aimed at strengthening the control of the means to be used by services . There will be no obstacle to the action of the commission, it will be the mission. To remove the remaining ambiguities, I will table an amendment to create a whistleblower status for intelligence officers. If they find that the tools are misled, they will say and will be protected.
Control would it not have been assigned to a judge rather than a commission, which advisory opinions will be?
But the judge is everywhere in this text! Four of the nine members of the Board of Control are magistrates and citizens to enter the Council of State. And if the opinion of the Committee were binding, it is she who would be responsible in case of problems. Now it makes sense that the government is responsible for its administration of intelligence as it is tax or prefectural governments.
Interview by Thierry RICHARD.
Cons: “We fear a mass surveillance”
Geneviève Garrigos. President of Amnesty International France.
Is this a bill that is going too fast and too far?
This is a good summary. Too fast, because between the presentation of the text by the Council of Ministers, on 19 March, and its consideration in the National Assembly, fast-track, 13 April, there was not much time left to debate. The text has been cured during its passage in the Committee on Laws, due to the massive support of the opposition, which wants a surveillance policy and more full-bodied information.
And too far?
Returning home to ask people microphones and cameras, massive capture phone conversations, monitor private computers and the Internet … All these practices are extremely worrying. So far, for placing someone under surveillance, it must be authorized by a judge. It is he who will check if it is a targeted measure, there are loads justifying, if there is a legitimate aim and if the device is proportional to this, and if it is not discriminatory. But tomorrow there will be no judge yet guardian of individual freedoms, to control all these points.
But National Control Commission …
This control is illusory. There would potentially, as the Interior Ministry, about 3,000 people to watch. We do not see how CNCTR could replace judicial review. And the appeal procedure entrusted to the State Council, upon notification of future CNCTR, is very complicated.
Face terrorist risks, we do nothing?
Nobody is against intelligence and security. But all these techniques are ineffective. That communicates over the Internet today? People who think they have nothing to hide. Those who are preparing to commit attacks know to surround the necessary precautions.
What do you want then?
safeguards for individual freedoms that this project does not provide . The scope of the law is much wider than the fight against terrorism. We fear mass surveillance.
Interview by François VERCELLETTO.
No comments:
Post a Comment