.
The French Parliament has adopted a new law catchall transcribed into French law various measures of U.S. Patriot Act. The sociologist Jean-Claude Paye, the ineffectiveness of comprehensive surveillance system gradually established to certify that its actual purpose is other than the stated goal. Western societies are moving towards a model where only the infantile is to place themselves under the gaze of power generates an enveloping sense of security.
French law "LOPPSI 2" Orientation Law and Planning for Homeland Security, has been finally adopted on February 8, 2011. This text has strong similarities with the U.S. Patriot Act, passed immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Both laws are presented both as a catch-all safe, a collection of disparate measures aimed at reducing fundamental freedoms, and contains important reforms designed to ensure control of the Net.
The USA Patriot Act anticipates the French laws. It installs as early as 2001, a whole set of provisions that will exist for a decade in France, Such legal installation of Trojans on computers, cyber crime and the criminalization of police infiltration in electronic trading.
Initially, when installed in 2001, the Patriot Act is in a state of emergency. He presents himself as having to face a state of war: "war against terrorism." In addition to measures already standing, several provisions were enacted for a period of four years. Only in 2006, during their renewal process, that most of these will become permanent. Only the most controversial will be voted on again for another four years. Then, under the Obama presidency, they will be renewed from year to year.
French law called LOPPSI 2, falls, in turn, directly into permanence. All his actions are voted for an indefinite period. Should not be renewed, the provisions are not limited in time. The main reference of this law is no longer the image of the war against terrorism, but it directly from a state of emergency, exhibited by the state to defend itself against its own people. The law mixture of general measures of surveillance and suppression of individual freedoms of all citizens with provisions that stigmatize particular groups of people, those placed in precarious or young.
The "Trojan horses"
Under the guise of the fight against "organized crime", the LOPPSI 2 provides for the possibility, with the authorization of a judge, to establish , unbeknown to the user, a technical recording keystrokes or screenshots. However, that system will retain all the infringements on the occasion of such surveillance, even if it does not concern facts within organized crime. These devices can be installed on site or remotely by infiltrating during a renewable period of eight months. To implement this "snitch", and investigators have the right to enter the home or vehicle of the defendant, without his knowledge and, if necessary, at night. To this end, the law annuls the constitutional protections of privacy.
The Net filtering
Law also provides a system for filtering sites distributing images of minors nature "clearly pornographic". Without intervention of a judge, she gives to an administrative authority, the Central Office of fight against crime, the possibility of depriving these sites access to the Net. However, the administration may ask the courts to content "clearly not child pornography." Presented as a limitation of the powers of the executive, this provision actually has a perverse consequence: it allows to extend the filtering to content that is clearly not a pedophile. As is well The aim of this article. Once adopted the principle of blocking, simply progressively extending the scope of filterable sites, as has been done to the national database of DNA. The law introduces a loophole that ad blocking other reasons. A simple amendment to the LOPPSI would include sites that do not respect copyright.
"Cybercrime"
The LOPPSI establishes a set of specific crimes they are exercised on the Net. Is created the offense of fraudulent use on a communications network electronic identity of an individual or personal data "in order to disturb its peace or undermine his honor or consideration."
The penalties for counterfeiting crimes by organized gangs of bank details of payment and goods over a network of electronic communication are heavier, up to ten years imprisonment and a million euros fine for fraudulent use of payment instruments.
Creating the crime of identity theft should promote a clear increased activity of "PHAROS platform (Platform Alignment, Analysis, Aggregation and Orientation of signals) which, since January 2009, under the government's action plan against" Internet crime, "the information to online police services, content of sites constituting a crime. These reports, over 1,000 per month currently, are then treated with OCLCTIC.
Interconnection files
The Act coordinates the file called "history" as the ICT and JUDEX, which contain of "personal data" relating to persons suspected of having participated in the commission of a crime, a misdemeanor or a violation of the 5th class. The text provides that the acquittals or dismissals lead to an erasure of personal data "unless the prosecutor in the maintenance required for reasons related to the purpose of the file." It also gives him the power to erase personal data or keeping them in the file, in case of dismissal or nolle prosequi.
Article 10 also allows use of systems " serial analysis, automatic matching of information that cross open data, available on the Internet, closed with data: IP, phone number. This is personal information about people suspected of being accomplices or perpetrators of crimes or offenses, but also on victims or on who may simply provide information. As for files called "reconciliation", they will allow to cross the personal data collected in different surveys and this without any limit in terms of seriousness of offenses.
Big Mother
At first glance, the law is unreadable. It appears as a tote, a collection of disparate measures, ranging from the creation of files on all residents and the legalization of cookies, the criminalization of the squatters or the possibility of installing a curfew for Children 13 years. But there is a strong coherence between the various provisions, not to the level of objects which are different articles, but with respect for authority. The offenses created nor have other purposes than to be carriers of the gaze government, media image of insecurity and his alter-ego, security.
Criminalization of squatters, people travel, illegal aliens or just young people, implies that any form of existence, which is not closely controlled, is dangerous. It is thus induced that security lies in a complete surrender to government initiatives, to its various files, his computer searches, and judicial impunity for its intelligence agents.
It's not for nothing that the law operates a semantic shift by changing "video" with "CCTV". This permutation is not intended to deceive us. This is not an ideological operation in the usual sense. But part of the transparency, the government of intentionality, that of Big Mother and governance fusional Thus, security, protection granted is, as well, to be in the eye of the camera monitoring by the generalized LOPPSI 2, only to be taken and preserved in its police files, even if it was acquitted by the courts. The purpose of these files is not to establish a population monitoring. A survey by the National Commission for Data Protection Authority had taught us that in 2008, French police files included 83% of errors. The goal is different, it is us that our intimate protection is to leave us in power and thereby waive any right to privacy.
Confinement in the "gaze" of power
The LOPPSI 2, like its antecedent the U.S. Patriot Act, operates a reversal of the legal system. It The first is to apply to people in procedures that were once only used vis-à-vis the agents of a hostile power. The next step is to put these measures into law, ie to obtain the consent of the people to abandon their existence.
In both cases, the legal construction is similar. The law saves the absence of limits on the exercise of executive power, reversing the traditional role of the latter. The
LOPPSI 2 is illuminating to take this mutation, particularly the establishment of "history files . The acquittal by a court does not automatically delete the entry in the file. The delisting depends only on the arbitrary decision of the prosecutor. This procedure indicates that the purpose of these files is not the monitoring of populations. It confirms what we learned an investigation by the CNIL on the last three years, more than one million people are still marked as "suspicious", even though they have been bleached by the courts.
Again, this is not to monitor populations, but installing in them the sense that they have no room to maneuver against the arbitrary power of facing the way they are called. The
LOPPSI is not, as has often written, the manifestation of a surveillance society, but rather that of a "society scopic" a society that imprisons us in the eyes of power, which the individual must identify himself to protect him. The resulting insecurity while being outside that look like, for example, be placed outside of the cameras. The challenge is not to identify criminals or even "Persons at risk." It is to be accepted by citizens as the power has the ability to appoint, dispose of their existence and they have no recourse against this state of affairs.
Jean-Claude Paye
Sociologist
Sociologist
0 comments:
Post a Comment