Yes of course we want to win the fight against terrorism, but it cannot be at the cost of who we are. Our civil liberties are a defining characteristic of western societies. It’s what sets us apart from the kinds of societies these terrorists advocate. We must find a way to win this fight within the confines of our societal standards.
As Winston Churchill's famous cry resounded over war-torn Europe, "Never, never, never, never Give Up," let this become our modern day cry for "Freedom!' My deepest admiration for him!! RazorTongue!
1
Here's an example of what Churchill was exhorting Europe to continue:
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." -- To the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine
I've never understood why people who want to oppose a wrong cite people the ilk of Churchill. He was never anything other than a representative of the most rapacious elements of the rulers of the former British empire.
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." -- To the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine
I've never understood why people who want to oppose a wrong cite people the ilk of Churchill. He was never anything other than a representative of the most rapacious elements of the rulers of the former British empire.
1
Now, Tom, tell me how you really feel about Churchill! Please! RazorTongue!
"France is not Russia"
Indeed.
In terms of the respect its politicians and civil service have for the freedom of its citizens, it is much closer to the old Soviet Union.
Indeed.
In terms of the respect its politicians and civil service have for the freedom of its citizens, it is much closer to the old Soviet Union.
1
I remember when France was a liberal standard bearer in European politics. It must be their fear of Islamic radical attacks which are driving this very bad idea. Perhaps, those in the French Senate will come to their senses before passing this law expanding electronic surveillance of its citizens.
Liberty and security are always at opposite ends on the political spectrum, and trading one for the other must be considered carefully, unless you don't mind your country becoming a police state, like say, America has become after 9/11, or a totalitarian regime, like Russia has become under Putin.
Who would have thought that the America of the mid-1990s was our last golden period with a relative lack of Islamic radicals paranoia, as well as our last time of a relatively broad economic expansion?
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone, right, Joni?
3
Just a continuation of the trend to worshipping govt and giving govt unlimited powers.Obama would love what's going on in France.
People deceive themselves. If you buy anything with a credit card, if you visit any computer site, if you perform any transactions with cell phones, someone already knows exactly what you are doing.
You all gave up your privacy as soon as you purchased computers and cell phones, or any other electronic device where you can go to the internet or purchase things.
It is absurd to pretend otherwise and it is absurd to see the government as your enemy. Wall Street and megacompanies are more your enemy than the government. They only serve themselves, to make a buck is their only goal, and they do not care who they harm. The Food Industry knows very well how to get you hooked on consuming items which have only led to an epidemic or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, some cancers, and even dementia. (It is all made very sweet to you with the addition of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup, chemically essentially the same: fructose is the bad apple in the equation.)
Supermarkets manipulate you to buy things you do not need. Advertising, by anyone, but specially Pharmaceutical companies, convince people to demand and use ever more dangerous and expensive drugs that do not really eliminate the basic problem that caused your chronic disease, most of it preventable by a mostly plant based diet, healthy living and exercise.
Most people are slaves to consumerism, to keep buying things and using products that are not needed for your happiness.
Do you really think you have free will?
You all gave up your privacy as soon as you purchased computers and cell phones, or any other electronic device where you can go to the internet or purchase things.
It is absurd to pretend otherwise and it is absurd to see the government as your enemy. Wall Street and megacompanies are more your enemy than the government. They only serve themselves, to make a buck is their only goal, and they do not care who they harm. The Food Industry knows very well how to get you hooked on consuming items which have only led to an epidemic or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, some cancers, and even dementia. (It is all made very sweet to you with the addition of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup, chemically essentially the same: fructose is the bad apple in the equation.)
Supermarkets manipulate you to buy things you do not need. Advertising, by anyone, but specially Pharmaceutical companies, convince people to demand and use ever more dangerous and expensive drugs that do not really eliminate the basic problem that caused your chronic disease, most of it preventable by a mostly plant based diet, healthy living and exercise.
Most people are slaves to consumerism, to keep buying things and using products that are not needed for your happiness.
Do you really think you have free will?
2
Orioles' COO John Angelos, the son of owner Peter Angelos, "The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate price" "We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don't have jobs and are losing economic, civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ballgame irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans." "My greater source of personal concern, " is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle-class and working-class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American's civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state."
1
I recall reading the Rights Of Man in college, the French answer to the US bill Of Rights. It is full of noblew sentiments that start out bravely, demanding the government and its authorities will adhere to the letter of these laws--but each one ends with a lame sentence at the end of each guarantee, allowing the government to change, modify or reverse rights and immunities at will as it sees fit.
1
Mass surveillance is useless, the amounts of data needed to be processed are out of range of todays computing capacity. So why not concentrate on targeted surveillance as law enforcement and intelligence agencies do.
If targeted surveillance is accepted why not let a Judge oversee it? There are a lot of god spies and some corrupt spies. The legal system we have is good, use it!
If targeted surveillance is accepted why not let a Judge oversee it? There are a lot of god spies and some corrupt spies. The legal system we have is good, use it!
1
Very good comments here. But allowing government bureaucrats or any biased and/or ambitious law enforcement official who wants to justify his or her job to engage in unchecked spying is dangerous to any society. A Ben Franklin quote is appropriate here: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
We never seem to learn from history. Acts by a small number always seem to result in the detriment of the innocent masses. Despots have emerged to take advantage of such hysteria to gain unlimited powers on the pretense of looking out for the best interests of the masses. We all know how those societies turned out.
We never seem to learn from history. Acts by a small number always seem to result in the detriment of the innocent masses. Despots have emerged to take advantage of such hysteria to gain unlimited powers on the pretense of looking out for the best interests of the masses. We all know how those societies turned out.
2
Sharing a border with countries infiltrated with jihadists might make this altered democracy a no-brainer. We over-reached and had two oceans between us and the jihadists. (Except those we had already imported with open arms) Give France a break - they've had a hard time and it's probably not over.
2
Freedom is everything to most western countries. We believe we actually have it - used to, but not in the last 20 years. Mostly, I believe, due to our own governments trying to fix life and make it fair. Nonsense.
It isn't fair that we have terrorists that are willing to kill just because we don't believe in Islam. Just because we don't make our women hide their faces and stay home. Just because we decide to wear shorts, skirts, or show parts of our body that offends Muslims.
It isn't fair that innocent people die of starvation, thirst, or because some nutjob decides to strap a bomb to their body, at the direction of self-proclaimed Imams or clerics, and walk into a public place.
But, contrary to progressive thinking, live isn't fair. It's not fair that my friend was gang raped and the defendants were allowed to block the fact that both had been convicted of rape in the past. It's not fair that she resents black people because of it. It's not fair that everyone doesn't have a great job and makes a lot of money, or at least as much as their neighbor.
Government's job really only has 2 roles. Protect it's citizens (not everyone, its citizens) from those that would attack them (= war, sometimes, police, fire) and provide services that would otherwise not be provided by the private sector (primary education, parks, environmental protections for water, air, and few others).
This falls into government's role. Sad, but true.
It isn't fair that we have terrorists that are willing to kill just because we don't believe in Islam. Just because we don't make our women hide their faces and stay home. Just because we decide to wear shorts, skirts, or show parts of our body that offends Muslims.
It isn't fair that innocent people die of starvation, thirst, or because some nutjob decides to strap a bomb to their body, at the direction of self-proclaimed Imams or clerics, and walk into a public place.
But, contrary to progressive thinking, live isn't fair. It's not fair that my friend was gang raped and the defendants were allowed to block the fact that both had been convicted of rape in the past. It's not fair that she resents black people because of it. It's not fair that everyone doesn't have a great job and makes a lot of money, or at least as much as their neighbor.
Government's job really only has 2 roles. Protect it's citizens (not everyone, its citizens) from those that would attack them (= war, sometimes, police, fire) and provide services that would otherwise not be provided by the private sector (primary education, parks, environmental protections for water, air, and few others).
This falls into government's role. Sad, but true.
3
"As the authorities struggle to keep up with the hundreds of French citizens who travel to and from battlefields in Iraq and Syria to wage jihad....."
The French government (and those of other European states) are clearly NOT protecting their citizens when they allow these jihadists back into the country to freely circulate after participating in jihad in the Middle East.
On the grounds of bending over backwards to honor the "human rights" of these barbarians, European governments are denying the rights of their own indigenous peoples not to have to live in a perpetual undercurrent of terror. In any case, the whole situation in Europe has been allowed (for whatever unfathomable reason) to reach an un-remediable point of no return.
The French government (and those of other European states) are clearly NOT protecting their citizens when they allow these jihadists back into the country to freely circulate after participating in jihad in the Middle East.
On the grounds of bending over backwards to honor the "human rights" of these barbarians, European governments are denying the rights of their own indigenous peoples not to have to live in a perpetual undercurrent of terror. In any case, the whole situation in Europe has been allowed (for whatever unfathomable reason) to reach an un-remediable point of no return.
2
Instead of oppressing our own citizens, greatly reducing their civil liberties we should put an end to arbitrarily imposing this multicultural diversity which brings the standards for everybody amongst us to the lowest possible denominator. I came to America to run away from Islam, and all sorts of religions, from male chauvinism and other degrading traditions that keep men and women subjugated. if somebody wants to come to this country he or she should do like the Romans in Rome. I didn't come here to go back to where I didn't want to be in the first place. I'm sorry I may appear be bigoted I am far from that. I speak and write for languages I know my history from ancient time to the 20th century, I am a student of philosophy and a quantified teacher, I am also an accomplished artist and very much involved in the creation of the most vibrant art district in Denver. You can check it out for yourself, the Denver art district on Santa Fe.com. my husband and I have been amongst the first pioneers, we brought it to the level it is today, we still run it. Our focus is. to up the standards and promote excellence in the arts. We are privately owned businesses we give minorities their dues, however they cannot bring us down by screaming discrimination. They want to join us we welcome them, they don't, they are on their own and cannot make demands. Something that is very prevailing in US culture. We cannot be a great nation if we cater to those who scream hardest.
3
I do not see another way. France is a prime example of a democratic country who believed that large numbers of people who arrived with totally antithetical beliefs, values, and education (or lack thereof) would want to assimilate into THEIR country. The sad fact is that the vast majority of terrorist activity in France and in Europe is a direct result of growing numbers of Islamic extremists, and their psychotic converts. They are a "culture" of death....period. It is now time to route them out by any means necessary, and extreme surveillance is the most civilized price to pay. Very very sad. Totally predictable.
6
The US and France are open societies, and are also very robust in their determination to aggressively defend the open society against its enemies. France in particular has long had the most powerful magistrates in the western world.
This is not some crazy or extreme lurch away from freedom. We and the Fench allow people from around the world a very wide latitude to travel to and from our nations and to organize freely, including the organization of people united in their hatred of the open society. This capability to plot and coordinate mass murder is vastly expanded by social edit tools.
Given the inevitability that hundreds or thousands of such people will seek to commit acts of mass violence against peaceful citizens, it is right and proper that the peaceful majority should equip the state with electronic surveillance techniques.
To deny the people's right to anticipate and disrupt mass violence in the name of freedom from state intrusion is absurd.
This is not some crazy or extreme lurch away from freedom. We and the Fench allow people from around the world a very wide latitude to travel to and from our nations and to organize freely, including the organization of people united in their hatred of the open society. This capability to plot and coordinate mass murder is vastly expanded by social edit tools.
Given the inevitability that hundreds or thousands of such people will seek to commit acts of mass violence against peaceful citizens, it is right and proper that the peaceful majority should equip the state with electronic surveillance techniques.
To deny the people's right to anticipate and disrupt mass violence in the name of freedom from state intrusion is absurd.
4
European nations, especially France, have very serious problems with terrorists. However, everyone must accept the fact that in the age of terrorism and computer theft, there is really no such thing as privacy from the government. Of course, the government can abuse this power, but we can't logically complain about the government being able to know everything about each one of us and everyone else. The only concern I have is not loss of privacy, but the potential loss of full "freedom of speech." We shouldn't have to worry about being contacted by government agents because we said something that may be offensive to someone (like "Charlie Hebdoe), but if anyone's speech implies the possibility of terrorist acts or supporting terrorists, that person should be investigated, interviewed, interrogated, etc.
3
It would be wise to upgrade and surveil our water systems and energy grids, something that I don't think is being paid nearly enough attention. Most public surveillance is a good thing. I do worry about the Internet and phone stuff. I think methods have not yet been devised to separate, well enough, the good from the bad.
1
threats to public health can be measured, in the air, and water, for example, anytime, anyplace...the threat of terror, similarly, has many matrices and can be measured, must be measured, in all of them and, these days, that includes the electronic atmosphere around us, the clouds over our heads, if you will, and just like the water supply we all share, it has to be sampled, observed, toward protection of the public well-being.
of course strict electronic surveillance is easy to recommend if one does not depend on various e-devices and, conversely, hard to accept if one is devoted or addicted to such devices for professional and personal communication,
(the irony of our appetite for universally shared self-surveillance on social media aside).
if the few cases to date of terror ignited by tweets and bleeps is any indicator, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
of course strict electronic surveillance is easy to recommend if one does not depend on various e-devices and, conversely, hard to accept if one is devoted or addicted to such devices for professional and personal communication,
(the irony of our appetite for universally shared self-surveillance on social media aside).
if the few cases to date of terror ignited by tweets and bleeps is any indicator, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
2
Well, it appears that France is going to have the surveillance government that President Obama, Clapper, and the NSA have dreamed. Let's see how the people of France fare in this experiment.
1
Who are we to criticize? We didn't have nor have we gained the strength, conviction and perseverance to rein in the creation of our own police state in the U.S. starting with the Patriot Act.
1
This was the goal.
Liberté, fraternité et égalité is over. The conscience of the world has died.
3
The retort "if you have nothing to hide" assumes that the government that gets your information will only use it lawfully. Long before the excessive fear after 9/11 our government was spying on its citizens and doing illegal things with the information. Not much of this is ever revealed, but if you have any doubts just google "COINTELPRO."
1
The democracies of the world are showing themselves to have a glass jaw.
No democracy can function effectively in such a surveillance state- and I include our country.
No democracy can function effectively in such a surveillance state- and I include our country.
2
M. Sur is right, The legislation, notwithstanding pro forma powers of judicial review, is a trojan horse for subverting the democratic foundations of French society. France, please don't go the way of America, the US Patriot Act a serious intrusion on basic civil liberties. The French one, as presently drawn, collection indiscriminate at best of metadata, mocks the cherished Western principle of privacy, sharing this in practice with the US version.
Without privacy, democracy shrivels. Still worse, the response replicates the most sinister provisions of totalitarianism. Enough already! Let's get back to moral values and political sanity--in both countries.
Without privacy, democracy shrivels. Still worse, the response replicates the most sinister provisions of totalitarianism. Enough already! Let's get back to moral values and political sanity--in both countries.
2
Good. France is finally doing something. We are always hamstrung in the USA because of endless whining by "privacy" advocates. Do we want to stop Muslim/Arab terrorism or do we want to worry that the government is listening to our pizza orders and nonsense chit-chat. Americans are so wary of the government that we don't even have a national ID card, something that virtually every other country has and something that would stop many terrorists from moving about the country.
2
Please wake up people. It's not enough to wring your hands and chalk it up to an unpleasant consequence of the social media age. If France is now publicly going the Big Brother route, it won't be long before all the governments are also out in the open doing it. In a search for effectiveness they will all collaborate and the power over the population that results will be a strong impetus for the formation of a one-world government (likely unelected) that believes it's role is to rule over humanity's ideas, behaviour and aspirations. "This is how the world ends, This is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper" TS Eliot.
1
The paranoia i shown in these measures will only hurt and make it more of a challenge for any terrorist group Christian or otherwise.
For every action there is a reaction and there is an unlimited shelf life of both.
For every action there is a reaction and there is an unlimited shelf life of both.
The French have this right and we don't.
"Despite vocal opposition from critics who fear it will lead to mass-scale surveillance." (quoted from a different article)
The critics needn't worry. No government has -ever- been paranoid, misguided, or stupid enough to do that to its citizens. Oops, my bad. I misspoke. Sorry...won't happen again...
The critics needn't worry. No government has -ever- been paranoid, misguided, or stupid enough to do that to its citizens. Oops, my bad. I misspoke. Sorry...won't happen again...
It's interesting to see this law progress in parallel with the recent attack in Texas. In that situation, the attacker left *public* messages on Twitter, and had been monitored by the FBI. If that sort of active engagement can't stop a terrorist, then what are the odds that massive electronic dragnets will do any better?
It's tempting to think that ceding personal liberties will make everyone safe. The attack in Texas proves this to be a misguided fantasy.
P.S. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying that neither cellphones nor the Internet existed in 1991. In fact, both were already available for some time.
It's tempting to think that ceding personal liberties will make everyone safe. The attack in Texas proves this to be a misguided fantasy.
P.S. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying that neither cellphones nor the Internet existed in 1991. In fact, both were already available for some time.
1
The French response to terrorism is symptomatic of the response of most civilized societies since 9/11. We would rather curtail our own rights than those of the terrorists whose actions prompted the response. It is not possible to fight terrorism in a politically correct way.
We must change our tactics. Terrorists are using our values to defeat us. We need to understand that and develop different means and methods of dealing with those who live by terrorism as a way of accomplishing their objectives. They are playing by different rules, and so must we.
We need to pursue terrorism relentlessly at its roots. For example, ISIS is daily committing crimes against humanity. Thus, we would be well within conventional rights and norms of civilized societies to take ISIS down by any civilized means available to prevent the reoccurrence of these blatant and unspeakable criminal acts.
If and when terrorists renounce terrorism and behave reasonably and responsibly according to conventional norms of civilized societies, then we can back off. Until then, terrorists must be dealt with the way we deal with cancer. The cancer must be destroyed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise, as would every cancer patient, we and our way of life will die.
We must change our tactics. Terrorists are using our values to defeat us. We need to understand that and develop different means and methods of dealing with those who live by terrorism as a way of accomplishing their objectives. They are playing by different rules, and so must we.
We need to pursue terrorism relentlessly at its roots. For example, ISIS is daily committing crimes against humanity. Thus, we would be well within conventional rights and norms of civilized societies to take ISIS down by any civilized means available to prevent the reoccurrence of these blatant and unspeakable criminal acts.
If and when terrorists renounce terrorism and behave reasonably and responsibly according to conventional norms of civilized societies, then we can back off. Until then, terrorists must be dealt with the way we deal with cancer. The cancer must be destroyed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise, as would every cancer patient, we and our way of life will die.
The French government prefers attacking the short-term shortcomings of its proper services to drying up the swamp which breeds terrorism.
A first short-term measure which would reap immediate benefits would be to limit the interservice struggles that come up time and again. They are so important that they even evaporate to the press.
But a real strategy would be long-term but unpopular.
A long-term strategy would be
targetting French xenophobia against Arabs and Africans,
speaking about the colonial heritage many French are still proud of,
fighting unemployment in the ghettos,
giving hope that people living in the suburbs can also participate in French society that prides itself so often of liberté, égalité, fraternité.
But this would mean spending money on unpopular policies and replacing propaganda by political action.
Today the French socialist government will just extend the powers of the secret services "a little bit". This is a goverment which tries to protect out lives, our liberties, our constitutions (though with an inappropriate law).
Can you imaging what a extreme rightwing Front National goverment will do with such a far-fetching law ?
A first short-term measure which would reap immediate benefits would be to limit the interservice struggles that come up time and again. They are so important that they even evaporate to the press.
But a real strategy would be long-term but unpopular.
A long-term strategy would be
targetting French xenophobia against Arabs and Africans,
speaking about the colonial heritage many French are still proud of,
fighting unemployment in the ghettos,
giving hope that people living in the suburbs can also participate in French society that prides itself so often of liberté, égalité, fraternité.
But this would mean spending money on unpopular policies and replacing propaganda by political action.
Today the French socialist government will just extend the powers of the secret services "a little bit". This is a goverment which tries to protect out lives, our liberties, our constitutions (though with an inappropriate law).
Can you imaging what a extreme rightwing Front National goverment will do with such a far-fetching law ?
2
It always surprises me that the electorate allow Governments to get away with so much in the name of security. There is an assumption that because you currently have a democracy it will last forever and a tyrant will never assume control. Remember that in July 1932 in Germany, Hitler was actually elected and in the national interest started to chip away at democracy. There were no further elections. Now imagine this. If Hitler existed today how quickly he could commit genocide with all the information government has on everyone. We have started a long walk down a very dark path.
1
This are not ordinary times.The scenario ahead is Grim,specially for the ordinary people.
Tough times need tough bills.
France needs to be commended for rising up to the ocassion.
Every free nation needs to emulate france & incorporate total,blanket Surveillance laws to protect its citizenry from the menace of bigots gone berserk.
Human rights is of no use if there is no Human Life.
Tough times need tough bills.
France needs to be commended for rising up to the ocassion.
Every free nation needs to emulate france & incorporate total,blanket Surveillance laws to protect its citizenry from the menace of bigots gone berserk.
Human rights is of no use if there is no Human Life.
3
This can't be a serious article. I am in France a lot, and I know from friends in law enforcement that the French listen in on practically everybody as it is. There has never been any real judicial oversight, otherwise this would have been an issue long before now. This is not only for counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorism would make sense if it were the main purpose of the legislation.
To cover their disastrous fiscal policies, they are out to confiscate money from every citizen (French or otherwise) they can, and so their Customs and financial authorities listen in on practically every shop in the country to see if they can descend on them and levy fines for no reason at all. Their Customs officers are on commission, so they have an incentive to step over the line. They even terrorize small collector coin fairs, extorting fines from those present for violation of regulations they make up on the spot.
Maybe this "new" legislation is to provide legal cover for what already exists, but I don't see why they bother. Both the French and the Belgians listen in on anyone they want to, and that's almost everybody. They have done so for many, many years now without covering legislation. Why are they suddenly bothering now?
To cover their disastrous fiscal policies, they are out to confiscate money from every citizen (French or otherwise) they can, and so their Customs and financial authorities listen in on practically every shop in the country to see if they can descend on them and levy fines for no reason at all. Their Customs officers are on commission, so they have an incentive to step over the line. They even terrorize small collector coin fairs, extorting fines from those present for violation of regulations they make up on the spot.
Maybe this "new" legislation is to provide legal cover for what already exists, but I don't see why they bother. Both the French and the Belgians listen in on anyone they want to, and that's almost everybody. They have done so for many, many years now without covering legislation. Why are they suddenly bothering now?
1
unfortunately we are living democracy era electronic agree with the French authorities
1
This legislation demonstrates the blind faith we have in the ability of technology to "save the day". The reality is that humans will ultimately be engaged in the process, and those humans will need to be highly trained law enforcement officers. These high-tech police will write the algorithms computers use to flag alleged terrorists, validate that the alleged terrorists identified by the computer algorithm are real, and interview and/or monitor the alleged terrorists. The technology itself isn't threatening… but the law enforcement required to make the technology functional IS scary.
1
To paraphrase Winston Churchill's statement - "We will fight terrorists by land, water and air but also by all electronic means...." in order to keep our society, culture and style of life. Some people fail to understand that we are in a war in which our values are threatened and if we want to offer our children the freedoms we have, we must use all the means to win. There is no fight without pains and costs. Take a moment to consider the alternative of not fighting and not using all the means.
3
I have yet to hear, or read, of one instance where NSA surveillance has resulted in any innocent person being harmed. On the flip side, there are a number of cases where surveillance has save lives.
2
It's not about harm; it's about freedom. Communist East Germany was a far safer place than democratic West Germany. Which would you have chosen to live in?
Loke in the US after 9/11, the French government panicks and seize this opportunity to go on Stasi mode. Constantly bragging about "freedom of expression" - that was already pretty restrained-French authorities have been laying the ground for legal grounds to effectively censure any expression that would point to original ideas or ways to modernize, adapt and enhance democracy.
What the so-called socialist government is doing is practically laying down the structures of a policiary state for any extremist party (i.e. the Front National) to impose on its people what Putin or kim jung un only dream of.
What the so-called socialist government is doing is practically laying down the structures of a policiary state for any extremist party (i.e. the Front National) to impose on its people what Putin or kim jung un only dream of.
1
I lived in France for five years and this is typically French. Do nothing or do everything so massively over the top it becomes a pervasive and dangerous self damaging self fulfilling prophecy. French police and judiciary already have some of the most sweeping powers of any and now this. Imagine what a Marine Le Pen Government would do with laws like this already in place. It's the beginnings of the end of French democracy.
1
The Charlie Hebdo terror attacks never implied a reaction so ill conceived and disproportionate to the event itself as to result into inventing an Orwellion style French Big Brother ready to trample upon even whatever little private space the citizens could claim for themselves under the suffocating conditions of repressive modern state, that has long abandoned the very core values of liberty, equally, and fraternity on which it was founded following the great French Revolution.
2
i've consistently maintained that the problems with the current USA surveillance protocols do not amount to an "invasion of privacy" but to a failure of oversight. specifically, failure of the legally required oversight, specifically by congress and the justice department.
the french law seems to propose oversight be vested in a separate entity, the 13 member commission, and not, as in the USA, by a "court" that consists of one judge, or internal NSA review, or an "intelligence committee" integral to the politics of congress. that sounds like an extremely good idea: we have evidence enough that the current "oversight" in the USA is a miserable failure.
people who rail against surveillance as an infringement of civil rights, or excuse it as necessary in an era of jihad, are both wrong. surveillance is a necessary component of the control infrastructure in a planet headed toward 10 billion people; jihad is just the bogey man. and surveillance includes financial records, travel records, credit records, contracts and titles, the whole digital sprawl. nothing is outside the box.
users of facebook may know of the "service" that asks you to indicate your association with faces of people. nowadays you're not merely being snooped on: you're asked to provide information for the surveillance database!
the french law seems to propose oversight be vested in a separate entity, the 13 member commission, and not, as in the USA, by a "court" that consists of one judge, or internal NSA review, or an "intelligence committee" integral to the politics of congress. that sounds like an extremely good idea: we have evidence enough that the current "oversight" in the USA is a miserable failure.
people who rail against surveillance as an infringement of civil rights, or excuse it as necessary in an era of jihad, are both wrong. surveillance is a necessary component of the control infrastructure in a planet headed toward 10 billion people; jihad is just the bogey man. and surveillance includes financial records, travel records, credit records, contracts and titles, the whole digital sprawl. nothing is outside the box.
users of facebook may know of the "service" that asks you to indicate your association with faces of people. nowadays you're not merely being snooped on: you're asked to provide information for the surveillance database!
2
We should do the same here.
2
In my opinion more surveillance means less freedom. Less freedom means the terrorists have gained an edge in France to satisfy a short term gain by the legislators. Those who kill to reinforce their beliefs are short sighted too.
1
France, you disappoint me.
1
. On its face more surveillance is not necessarily what we want. What is really needed is more actionable intelligence. There is a real social cost to getting more of it: invasion of privacy, intimidating citizens by investigating them, wrongly prosecuting (should I say 'persecuting') people, dredging up lots of notable but unimportant statements and actions, etc.
. Balance this against the social cost of occasional terror attacks -- but compare the cost of an attack to the cost of death & injury due to gun violence, traffic collisions, etc. Are we *really* living in more dangerous times? Or are we merely aware of isolated incidents because they happen to make the news?
. Balance this against the social cost of occasional terror attacks -- but compare the cost of an attack to the cost of death & injury due to gun violence, traffic collisions, etc. Are we *really* living in more dangerous times? Or are we merely aware of isolated incidents because they happen to make the news?
1
Let's be honest: mass surveillance is not about the state protecting citizens, from terrorists. It's about the state protecting the state, from citizens.
6
The cure may be far worse than the disease. There are many things that could be done relative to the bad things happening in society which have a much higher ROI. We should not be so quick to agree to be spied on. We really are becoming herded animals. That's my take and values anyway.
2
so what happens if I go to France on vacation, would the French government be tracking me after I got home?
subcranial monitors of location, conversation, perception, emotion implanted at birth - for your own good of course - any technology available will be weaponized and politicized at first available opportunity
2
"Associates of people under surveillance could also have their communications monitored regardless of whether they are implicated
in potentially illegal acts" We should give up our freedom and privacy
to protect our freedom and privacy? This is one step removed from
being stopped and frisked and searched because law enforcement
does not like the "way you look". If we give in to this, ISIS has won.
For that is what they want, paralyzing fear.
in potentially illegal acts" We should give up our freedom and privacy
to protect our freedom and privacy? This is one step removed from
being stopped and frisked and searched because law enforcement
does not like the "way you look". If we give in to this, ISIS has won.
For that is what they want, paralyzing fear.
4
We do not and have never "prevented" crime. We have developed preventative tactics that lower the crime rate they do not end it.
If you think about it every single crime where the criminal attacks a person or persons is "sudden" and without warning dun dun dunnnn.
Every criminal who encourages or assists in that crime or other crimes is an "associate!" dun dun dunnnn
Before this last 14 years of stupidity we didn’t seek to know or try to imagine the thoughts, motives, religious beliefs, theory of heaven etc of thieves, burglars, killers, etc We focused on facts about the crime and clues that lead to capturing them. Now we constantly talk about the religious beliefs we imagine a criminal has just because of what the press and others imagine about motivates that crime.
They are criminals. They commit crimes. That is all. Why they do it or what they say about it and their motives means nothing.
Its crime fight it! Sheesh you'd think the western world had lost its ability to see reality.
If you think about it every single crime where the criminal attacks a person or persons is "sudden" and without warning dun dun dunnnn.
Every criminal who encourages or assists in that crime or other crimes is an "associate!" dun dun dunnnn
Before this last 14 years of stupidity we didn’t seek to know or try to imagine the thoughts, motives, religious beliefs, theory of heaven etc of thieves, burglars, killers, etc We focused on facts about the crime and clues that lead to capturing them. Now we constantly talk about the religious beliefs we imagine a criminal has just because of what the press and others imagine about motivates that crime.
They are criminals. They commit crimes. That is all. Why they do it or what they say about it and their motives means nothing.
Its crime fight it! Sheesh you'd think the western world had lost its ability to see reality.
2
Who is surprised here at these developments? Oh but wait, I thought the French are so much more enlightened than Americans?
Reality check we all knew this was coming its futil not to accept it. Thye being same thing when terminators will replace our police are unsafe on streets. When our jobs disappear over nite replaced with robots will save us from unsafe work . This safety net from what ever is being funded by powerful intrest who only agenda is still unknown. France is moving into unknown territory relieing on imfomation being generated by unknown sources who should be working on protecting its borders
Hey Paul another Paul saying the World Trade Center was no "bee sting!' Wake up! Medieval battlements are rising with deep moats of ignorance surrounding them from which terror springs. Every means of modernity to combat this plague must be employed. Democracy is a myth. Good people are not harmed by this kind of surveillance. Joe McCarthy is long dead. Putin is obvious. The French have almost surrendered their country to Islam. New York builds a mosque near the site of 911 and that's the beginning of our surrender. Just look at the youth willing to make their bodies bombs: this is a terminal cancer in of the Western World. And by that I mean the one where tolerant people live. The one whose tolerance must be protected by its own moat of every technology that will add to its security. Thus was it always, thus shall it ever be!
This is absurd. Chaching! Some will make a lot of money on this!
1
This is just one symptom of a much deeper problem that is the liberal free immigration to Europe, which has been used mainly by Muslims. While the majority of Muslims want simply to love, earn money, raise a family, give education to their kids, there is a growing segment that wants to take over and impose Shria low. This will result in parties opposing to immigration to win elections, and the result might be increasing violence, the kind of which we have not seen before.
4
Including Angela Merkel's phone?
If you folks think this doesn't happen here on an anecdotal basis when investigators don't intend to use the information in a prosecution (it would be tainted), then I have a slightly used bridge that spans the East River I'd like to discuss with you. I can sell it VERY cheap.
If you folks think this doesn't happen here on an anecdotal basis when investigators don't intend to use the information in a prosecution (it would be tainted), then I have a slightly used bridge that spans the East River I'd like to discuss with you. I can sell it VERY cheap.
3
Did we ever find out what German agency was blamed for letting that happen? Who got fired or demoted? Anyone?
magicisnotreal:
Actually, I think the only ones who got fired were Americans.
By the way, magic actually IS real.
Actually, I think the only ones who got fired were Americans.
By the way, magic actually IS real.
The main purpose of the "Five Eyes Alliance" international Police/Surveillance State is to protect the interests of the Neo-liberal hegemonic corporatist ruling elite. Protecting the public against "terrorism" is used as a subterfuge (fear tactic and propaganda) in order to justify the imposition of this "total information awareness" surveillance system.
These "entities" within the different countries (U.S., France, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others) use the vast amounts of data being collected as another mean of monitoring, controlling/influencing, propagandizing, and exploiting he population.
The data collection and analysis also helps this nascent Neo-liberal Supranational Security State identify potential threats to its dominance, including intellectuals and social justice activists that raise concerns and organize against the corporate state abuses, and corruption.
We are witnessing the imposition and entrenchment of an Orwellian Surveillance Police State, and that means that in the final analysis, it will turn out to be the biggest threat to freedom and democracy worldwide.
These "entities" within the different countries (U.S., France, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others) use the vast amounts of data being collected as another mean of monitoring, controlling/influencing, propagandizing, and exploiting he population.
The data collection and analysis also helps this nascent Neo-liberal Supranational Security State identify potential threats to its dominance, including intellectuals and social justice activists that raise concerns and organize against the corporate state abuses, and corruption.
We are witnessing the imposition and entrenchment of an Orwellian Surveillance Police State, and that means that in the final analysis, it will turn out to be the biggest threat to freedom and democracy worldwide.
6
Anybody who doesn't think this has already been happening for a long time is a naive fool.
4
Lack of independent oversight over intelligence operations is a mistake, and certain to lead to abuses.
During my interactions and discussions with most American intelligence officers, I never doubt their patriotism, noble intentions, or strong desire to protect the American public. That said, this is definitely not a community that prioritizes civil liberties above security. Moreover, because their missions are threat-driven, intelligence agencies often overemphasize the necessary extent of that "security." Unchecked, it is not difficult for me to imagine many of the people I admire collecting information without discrimination or requirement.
Since intelligence cultures do not vary much from state to state in democracies, I assume the French case is no different. Without an independent body evaluating its activities, the French intelligence enterprise will eventually take what it wants, when it wants.
There is a definite need for enhanced intelligence authorities in an evolving information age with ever-present threats; there is an equally important need to balance those authorities in the hands of others.
During my interactions and discussions with most American intelligence officers, I never doubt their patriotism, noble intentions, or strong desire to protect the American public. That said, this is definitely not a community that prioritizes civil liberties above security. Moreover, because their missions are threat-driven, intelligence agencies often overemphasize the necessary extent of that "security." Unchecked, it is not difficult for me to imagine many of the people I admire collecting information without discrimination or requirement.
Since intelligence cultures do not vary much from state to state in democracies, I assume the French case is no different. Without an independent body evaluating its activities, the French intelligence enterprise will eventually take what it wants, when it wants.
There is a definite need for enhanced intelligence authorities in an evolving information age with ever-present threats; there is an equally important need to balance those authorities in the hands of others.
6
Christopher, one fundamental aspect related to this issue, which is often overlooked, is the role of for-profit corporations linked to the national security apparatus. Rapid, perpetual, quarterly growth demands inject a perverse incentive into the entire system.
This profit focus helps rationalize the rapid growth of the surveillance apparatus, which ends up distorting its mission.
This profit focus helps rationalize the rapid growth of the surveillance apparatus, which ends up distorting its mission.
6
Sadly as it was for America it is racism that has made French Politicians turn away from the open society that survived much worse and more frequent terrorism from the 60's thru the 80's by fellow Europeans.
Sadly these pols don't realise they are only fooling themselves the rest of us see the racism, bigotry and avarice for power and money driving these policies all over the Western powers.
Sadly these pols don't realise they are only fooling themselves the rest of us see the racism, bigotry and avarice for power and money driving these policies all over the Western powers.
1
After Charlie Hebdo, does France go ahead and actually implement REAL freedom of speech? No, it chooses the Gestapo state.
1
When you have hundreds of terrorists on the loose this is a wise tradeoff.
We should be more like them. The only reason we have not been attacked again is because of our intelligence services, as is clear from several foiled plots.
"Je Suis France"
We should be more like them. The only reason we have not been attacked again is because of our intelligence services, as is clear from several foiled plots.
"Je Suis France"
6
Internal security against a domestic threat, real or imagined, has been the the sirens' song of despotism and tyranny for centuries. French society cannot mitigate the consequences of isolating and marginalizing ethnic and religious groups for decades with a parisian style of our Patriot Act. Undermining the personal privacy and freedom from wholesale government surveillance of all French citizens in application will only alienate French Muslims.
Internal security forces,here and in France need to stop seeking a short term destabilizing solutions to a long term challenge; making all ethnic and religious groups feel they have a stake and a place in their adopted societies. No repressive system of governmental electronic surveillance could equal power of a French government and society publicly rededicated to the principles of the tricolor; Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité for all.
Internal security forces,here and in France need to stop seeking a short term destabilizing solutions to a long term challenge; making all ethnic and religious groups feel they have a stake and a place in their adopted societies. No repressive system of governmental electronic surveillance could equal power of a French government and society publicly rededicated to the principles of the tricolor; Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité for all.
2
Western countries has lost the war against the terrorism ( or eastern countries that supply it) since the beginning, just because they reduce our rights just because they say have to fight "terrorists"
Governments can spy you legally, and this is the first goal of the terrorism fellowes.
The reduction of rights is a clear strategy of them , in order to destroy step by step our self-crated constitutions of the last three centuries.
The fact that the French are asking for this power is really the last country i aspected to do it.
There are too money in the world nowadays to be democrat.
XXI century will destroy any form of democracy in the world; we'll live in a techno-cleptocracy as the new middle-age era.
Governments can spy you legally, and this is the first goal of the terrorism fellowes.
The reduction of rights is a clear strategy of them , in order to destroy step by step our self-crated constitutions of the last three centuries.
The fact that the French are asking for this power is really the last country i aspected to do it.
There are too money in the world nowadays to be democrat.
XXI century will destroy any form of democracy in the world; we'll live in a techno-cleptocracy as the new middle-age era.
1
In light of recent events in France, I feel surveillance is justified. That being said, French parliament and the French people need to remember that this law is being introduced under special circumstances. If those circumstances at all change, this law needs to have the opportunity to be repealed because there is no denying it is an infringement on privacy.
You have any idea how difficult it is to repeal a law especially when the state becomes powerful? Look at our own Patriot Act. Let's all just hope when the situation changes, government has the good of the people at heart. I can almost hear thousands of people laughing at that statement.
2
The cost and effort of mining for terrorists in bulk data all but guarantee total privacy to john q. public. Only people who don't understand the immense complexity and difficulty of finding bad actors in bulk data think it would be used cavalierly.
1
I blame us. How much of this is truly because of fears of terrorism and how much is for suppressing dissent, keeping the current party in power, and getting trade secrets? If the US is not going to stop doing it, it's like an arms race: everyone else needs to do it too.
What no one asks is whether the tradeoff is worth it. If you did everything you possibly could to fight terrorism except spy on all your citizens, vs. everything plus spying on your citizens, what would the difference be? The difference should be so great that it would be worth every single human in the country losing the right to send a private email or text message or have a private phone call. But is is questionable that blanket surveillance helps at all, never mind helping so much that it is worth losing almost all privacy.
It's a fool's bargain. Our leaders are not fools, so I believe we're being dragged into this under false pretenses.
What no one asks is whether the tradeoff is worth it. If you did everything you possibly could to fight terrorism except spy on all your citizens, vs. everything plus spying on your citizens, what would the difference be? The difference should be so great that it would be worth every single human in the country losing the right to send a private email or text message or have a private phone call. But is is questionable that blanket surveillance helps at all, never mind helping so much that it is worth losing almost all privacy.
It's a fool's bargain. Our leaders are not fools, so I believe we're being dragged into this under false pretenses.
2
Now that we know the NSA is collecting and archiving our domestic phone conversations and saving them to their Big Database in Utah, and then converting the spoken words to searchable text ("serving our nation's intelligence"), all France needs to do is agree to the NSA doing the same for them, and pay an exorbitant fee for access to the data. Saves them the trouble of spending the kind of money we are, and they get the same result. Hey, we're doing it for England, Israel, Australia, and who knows else. Of course, the NSA denies that they are collecting "domestic calls"…of course they do. Even our Senators and Congress folks seem either totally oblivious to this or woefully ignorant. Perhaps both. The Intercept has the story, charts and all the groovy names the NSA comes up with to make their illegal surveillance sound like something completely innocuous - or like some video war game for young adults. The link for the curious: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-recognition-sno...
It's nice to know that we have lost all privacy, isn't it? And, looks like it isn't going to change or halted. Ever.
George Orwell would roll over in his grave…
It's nice to know that we have lost all privacy, isn't it? And, looks like it isn't going to change or halted. Ever.
George Orwell would roll over in his grave…
1
France and the U.S, the self proclaimed Homelands of human rigths, out do the Stasi and the KGB. Elected officials vote these laws, it speaks a lot about their level of culture or world knowledge.
1
"As the authorities struggle to keep up with the hundreds of French citizens who are cycling to and from battlefields in Iraq and Syria to wage jihad — often lured over the Internet — the new steps would give the intelligence services the right to gather potentially unlimited electronic data."
Does this not also beg the question: who exactly are we allowing into our nations? People who recently arrived or whose families never integrated are more likely to fly to the Islamic State than other groups in society. An inconvenient but true fact of life.
Perhaps we need to follow Israel's example and start ranking and addressing our security threats in order of likelihood, rather than wasting our time trying to make a facially-neutral regime for counter terror.
Does this not also beg the question: who exactly are we allowing into our nations? People who recently arrived or whose families never integrated are more likely to fly to the Islamic State than other groups in society. An inconvenient but true fact of life.
Perhaps we need to follow Israel's example and start ranking and addressing our security threats in order of likelihood, rather than wasting our time trying to make a facially-neutral regime for counter terror.
2
This is how freedom dies.
5
A historical quote: "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." In the internet era, it means surveillance of electronic and other means of communication.
2
You misunderstand the quote.
The "Eternal Vigilance" mentioned is that of thge Citizen eternally paying attention to and acting to stop or end these attempts by weak and cowardly people too fearful to be free, to take our freedoms from us so that they can hide their fear in acts of oppression and violence and declare themselves our defenders.
The "Eternal Vigilance" mentioned is that of thge Citizen eternally paying attention to and acting to stop or end these attempts by weak and cowardly people too fearful to be free, to take our freedoms from us so that they can hide their fear in acts of oppression and violence and declare themselves our defenders.
3
The many local conflicts like those in South Africa and Yemen or international like in Israel have one single matrix behind.
Since a strong current pour oil over the hotbeds in order to turn them into a worldwide conflict the hope is that this will be instead a single War pro or against Equality without regards for Religions, Countries or Races.
Think of the many ways the human and financial resources could be employed if there were no more borders between Countries. How is it possible today to be a patriot of any Country in a World governed by thieves?
Equality does not mean that everyone must possess an equal amount of wealth. It does not mean Communism but Democracy just like in the Greek origin of the word.
The concept of Equality has been conveniently adopted in the past by many causes that had nothing to do with Equality.
For example, Marxism is not Equality and came to exist from one mindset that saw money as measure of what is equal. Karl Marx was a Jewish philosopher who could not separate from the teachings of his culture and that led him to confuse the meaning of the concept. Recently, the media took possession of this concept by leveling Equality with the right for same sex marriage.
Still, Equality is something else.
Although many people want to pursue this ideal much confusion makes it much too blurry to materialize.
Besides, it would not be possible to Believe and fight for an Equality that is not understood.
Since a strong current pour oil over the hotbeds in order to turn them into a worldwide conflict the hope is that this will be instead a single War pro or against Equality without regards for Religions, Countries or Races.
Think of the many ways the human and financial resources could be employed if there were no more borders between Countries. How is it possible today to be a patriot of any Country in a World governed by thieves?
Equality does not mean that everyone must possess an equal amount of wealth. It does not mean Communism but Democracy just like in the Greek origin of the word.
The concept of Equality has been conveniently adopted in the past by many causes that had nothing to do with Equality.
For example, Marxism is not Equality and came to exist from one mindset that saw money as measure of what is equal. Karl Marx was a Jewish philosopher who could not separate from the teachings of his culture and that led him to confuse the meaning of the concept. Recently, the media took possession of this concept by leveling Equality with the right for same sex marriage.
Still, Equality is something else.
Although many people want to pursue this ideal much confusion makes it much too blurry to materialize.
Besides, it would not be possible to Believe and fight for an Equality that is not understood.
South Africa ? Huh ?
1
I must be reading the wrong story, I thought I was reading about spying not equality.
There's a lot of talk in the comments that technology somehow makes this inevitable, as if the French had to cave to the demands of the security state. I work in tech; I live in Silicon Valley. The 4th Amendment is as necessary today as it was when our founders wrote it. And privacy is important. If you say you don't have anything to hide, please post your bank statements, tax returns, and daily browser history. Please put live stream cameras in every room of your house. We all inherently value privacy, whether or not we realize it. Some of us choose to live in fear. But for others, the constitution remains non-negotiable.
3
The subject is not really surveillance. It is the availability of information that for most use has all the characteristics of being anonymous and pattern recognition. If a pattern arises then it becomes non-anonymous.
3
It is that sort of genuine yet foolish trust which leads to allowing men like Lenin to lead because he has "the peoples" best interest at heart.
1
I fully support France's decision to use every resource available to pre-empt and foil terrorists and anyone they know. Like cancer, unless treated early and robustly, you die.
4
Pre-emptive law enforcement is the antithesis of the "American way." Maybe you should go live where such ideas are considered normal and right?
1
So the terrorist won in France just like they won in the USA. A little dose of fear will make cowards give up their principals and their dignity.
3
I would happily give up my principal, but he died many years ago.
2
"A little dose of fear" Tell that to the survivors, next of kin and thousands of NY'ers and D.C. residents and millions of people who watched what happened on 9/11. And to call people who are more worried about the safety of all Americans instead of their own self serving personal rights "cowards" shows you are a narcissistic person.
1
Should read: "cite the need" rathe than "site"?
Evidently, the French didn't notice that this kind of indiscriminate spying hasn't yielded much for the U.S. NSA, FBI, and CIA. Nor did they learn that it really makes Americans angry.
During the Snowden controversy, Sen. Feinstein, San Francisco Democrat, said "Close to 500 terror plots have been broken up from our surveillance." To protect sources and methods, what plots and how they were penetrated is classified.
1
Notwithstanding France's credo of "Liberty-Equality-Fraternity", the nation has the remarkable ability to turn itself into an unbending, unyielding police state. That ability is codified in its laws, and the recent action by the French legislature merely tweaks that ability up a step or two. The French have a long history of brutality against subjugated peoples. Now it appears that this brutality has been turned against its very own people. And knowing the French people, they will accept that brutality.
Privacy is not about hiding stuff from people, its about having the right to keep stuff to ourselves that other people have no business knowing. It's about keeping our dignity intact without the meddling long arm of government getting all up in our business.
Seems to me the thing to do is for as many French persons as possible should pepper all their email phone calls texts posts, etc with a generous amount of terms the sniffer software will be on the lookout for.
It is so incredibly depressing and infuriating to read so many of the comments to this article excusing widespread spying - and that's what it is, spying - on the citizens of professed democracies. Couch it anyway you like, we have become cowards...emboldening our governments to encroach on our civil liberties under the guise of "security"...and this from readers of the NY Times....
This is once again proving the adage that every bad American trend comes to France ten years later.
1
While I've not been a fan of the penchant of Democratic law makers in this country for following the lead of their French political colleagues, I'd say in this case the Congressional Democrats need to pay attention to what the French Parliament is doing. We no longer live in an era where your gentlemanly adversary advised you as to his intentions on the field of combat before engagement. Frankly no one cares if your emails show you watch porn, or have a dalliance with the woman down the street. We do care if you are intent on setting of a nuclear device in New York or Chicago.
2
And a terrorist capable of obtaining and bringing a nuclear device to New York or Chicago won't be able to evade detection online?
In any event, nothing is private. The internet and phone companies already have all your data.
2
How many attacks has the Patriot Act prevented ? None, as far as we know. How many FBI-concocted "plots" has it enabled by encouraging FBI informants to entrap weak-minded and gullible losers ? Don't do this, France, it doesn't work!
2
I've heard many people say that "experts and exCIA and exNSA professionals" say that the present way of mining information doesn't work. But I've yet to hear any of these "experts and professionals" come up with a better solution for mining information. It would seem to me that if your intelligent enough to know something doesn't work you would also have a solution. Fact or a difference of ideology?
1
Good for them. Finally!
3
Increased and unlimited surveillance - won't make any of us more secure.
Inevitable - probably.
Worth the money - no way.
Want a lot more empowered slacker "security" people in your life? OK
If you want safer, try talking to your muslim neighbor across your backyard fence. Real chance at security, real likelihood of minimising threat.
Inevitable - probably.
Worth the money - no way.
Want a lot more empowered slacker "security" people in your life? OK
If you want safer, try talking to your muslim neighbor across your backyard fence. Real chance at security, real likelihood of minimising threat.
The French intel agencies already have all they need to fight against terrorism. They have been preventing many attacks these last years... And the ones they did not prevent (Merah, Coulibaly, etc.) happened because the terrorists, for a while, found a way under the radar. But they did not happen because these agencies had no legal abilities or budget to act... One could not say that they needed extended laws : they already do whatever they want, are under controled, and almost never scrutinized...
"Mr. Trévidic, the terrorism judge, has gone on national television and described the law as “dangerous” because it lacks any routine judicial review."
Is he talking about the new or the current law ? Actually this describes them both.
So, why new laws ? One could say it is only political opportunism after the the attack of Charlie Hebdo... Other could say that civil liberties are not a very trendy topic for western leaders nowadays. For government and companies, in 2015 the real topic is "massive and systematic data mining, about anything and anyone" because information is just equal to power, control and money. More you get, ...
"Mr. Trévidic, the terrorism judge, has gone on national television and described the law as “dangerous” because it lacks any routine judicial review."
Is he talking about the new or the current law ? Actually this describes them both.
So, why new laws ? One could say it is only political opportunism after the the attack of Charlie Hebdo... Other could say that civil liberties are not a very trendy topic for western leaders nowadays. For government and companies, in 2015 the real topic is "massive and systematic data mining, about anything and anyone" because information is just equal to power, control and money. More you get, ...
... and these guys got worked up about Charlie Hebdo! Hypocrites.
1
Come on people, democracy has been dead for a LONG time...
2
It's a sad commentary on the present state of public knowledge when the plot of Orwell's "1984" needs to be explained to readers when the term "Big Brother" is invoked.
3
11 years and Charlie Hebdo later, the country that warned us against the catastrophic invasion of Iraq is about to copy our mistakes. Sad!
3
Good for France. A society must learn to defend itself if it wishes to survive. With more than 12% of French not French, France's security situation if far dire than the U.S. We may not like the idea of a less free France that doesn't fit with our romantic notion of France but we are not the one living there.
Some people compare 9/11 with what happened in France and say the French overreacted. That's is not a valid comparison. Most of us don't fly everyday nor work in supertall skyscrapers so most of we don't really foresee 9/11 happens to us. This is not the situation in France. There, normal people suddenly turn jihadists and butchered their neighbors. It can happen anywhere at anytime by any mean. That's a level of constant fear we don't feel in the U.S.
Some people compare 9/11 with what happened in France and say the French overreacted. That's is not a valid comparison. Most of us don't fly everyday nor work in supertall skyscrapers so most of we don't really foresee 9/11 happens to us. This is not the situation in France. There, normal people suddenly turn jihadists and butchered their neighbors. It can happen anywhere at anytime by any mean. That's a level of constant fear we don't feel in the U.S.
1
"Not French " says it all even though a lot of immigrants were born there and lived there all their life. They never will be French because it is a provincial, racist society which is why these "normal people" act the way they do
1
What can that possibly mean, that "12% of French [are] not French"? Historically, France has been incredibly ethnocentric, and the alienation that many immigrants feel -- especially when they are hailing from former French colonies -- is a direct result of governmental and cultural systems set up in the first place to protect "French-ness" from contamination. This is a reason for terrorism, not an excuse... but France needs to come to terms with the fact that it cannot pride itself on its purity and, at the same time, expect the marginalized to remain immune to radicalization.
The terrorists have declared a guerrilla war which leaves all civilians in danger and all governments at risk of ineptitude .
By allowing this level of surveillance, the French are implicitly supporting curbs on their freedom of expression and communication. All that in the name of supporting the freedom of expression that the jihadists want to curb. As someone who was once affected by the Patriot Act, I am saddened by the irony.
3
With all these incursions, seems like the terrorists have won.
3
Without Sharia law and the caliphate across the Mideast, by their own words they have not won.
As a growing percentage of individuals are failing to police themselves, adding to the current maelstrom of disillusionment and discontent then to disguise; it is small wonder that old world democracies are now at cross purposes, attempting to cling to order when the methodology to maintain stability appears to conflict with underlying democratic principles regarding liberté, égalité, fraternité. Awash in lack of self-control, society and individuals misunderstand the concept of freedom and responsibility as if they were two sides of differing coins. France is responding to what is and painting a new reality.
1
"Come on in the water's fine " sadly we are all doomed as fear rules as the world population keeps allowing governments to watch every thing we do, say or write.
1
What would really defeat terrorism would be more tolerance, outreach and programs aimed at integrating disaffected young people into society. Unfortunately, as semi-evolved primates used to living in social groups of 100 individuals or less for most of our evolutionary history, our reaction when threatened is to turn to the familiar and close ranks. In the 21st century, we have a news cycle that constantly activates our sympathetic nervous system and gears us up for fight-or-flight. The temptation to do what seems "safe" is overwhelming.
But it's not really making us safer, is it? How much more likely are we all to have died in airline crashes than in terrorist attacks in the past 5 years? Not to mention car crashes, workplace accidents, choking on hot dogs - all orders of magnitude more fatal than terrorism in Western societies. We don't face an existential threat from terrorism - we face an existential threat from our own reaction to it. Fascism didn't spring up overnight in the 1920s and 30s, and we would be fools to think we are immune to it happening again. These measures may not actually represent or bring about oppression, but it is one step closer to that precipice. One step could make the difference between going over that cliff and being able to stop ourselves when the next calamity hits.
When democracy fails, it will be death by a thousand cuts. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", indeed.
But it's not really making us safer, is it? How much more likely are we all to have died in airline crashes than in terrorist attacks in the past 5 years? Not to mention car crashes, workplace accidents, choking on hot dogs - all orders of magnitude more fatal than terrorism in Western societies. We don't face an existential threat from terrorism - we face an existential threat from our own reaction to it. Fascism didn't spring up overnight in the 1920s and 30s, and we would be fools to think we are immune to it happening again. These measures may not actually represent or bring about oppression, but it is one step closer to that precipice. One step could make the difference between going over that cliff and being able to stop ourselves when the next calamity hits.
When democracy fails, it will be death by a thousand cuts. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", indeed.
1
Good news. Its the only way to target individuals in problem groups.
But it will fail. The problem is the group has too many individuals to track.
But it will fail. The problem is the group has too many individuals to track.
1
For once the nation of frog, snail, mushroom, pate eaters and wine drinkers are following Uncle Sam into doing something extremely stupid by surrendering their values in being free from surveillance unless there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause for an imaginary impossible level of security..
We followed them into disaster in Vietnam and the Middle East. I hope they get what they deserve as they focus their wrath on the non-white French Roman Catholics coming from the ends of the French Empire..
We followed them into disaster in Vietnam and the Middle East. I hope they get what they deserve as they focus their wrath on the non-white French Roman Catholics coming from the ends of the French Empire..
When a government cannot effectively prevent a problem, it will move to do something conspicuous anyway, in hopes few will deduce that the action is ineffective. Unfortunately for the French government, the effectiveness of "collect everything" against preventing terrorist acts has already been tested for years in the U.S. and found wanting.
What was that saying by Ben Franklin - people who trade liberty for security deserves neither? Here you have the birthplace of the Statue of Liberty and the French Revolution becoming another country where freedom becomes just another word.
With it lack of independent oversight, just wait until the "wrong" people lead France. At that point, the laws will be used not to protect the people but to control them. And I am not talking about the 1%.
But, people get the government they deserve (a perfect example is the re-election of Rick Scott as governor of Florida).
To paraphrase the theme song from the movie Billy Jack:
"Go ahead spy on your people
Go ahead and watch them
Do it in the name of security
You can justify it in the end"
With it lack of independent oversight, just wait until the "wrong" people lead France. At that point, the laws will be used not to protect the people but to control them. And I am not talking about the 1%.
But, people get the government they deserve (a perfect example is the re-election of Rick Scott as governor of Florida).
To paraphrase the theme song from the movie Billy Jack:
"Go ahead spy on your people
Go ahead and watch them
Do it in the name of security
You can justify it in the end"
4
Ever since the first knot hole in a fence was exploited as a means of covertly surveying what was on the side, it opened the door to such practices. Why should the sophistication or complexity of the fence or the device prelude it's ability to be exploited for the same aim? Isn't that merely the definition of progress? That the basic principles really never change, simply the manner of devises used technologically advance, along with some basic primitive human aspects that have to as well in order to manipulate these new devises. Before and after, life and people basically remains the same relative to the machines.
It is disappointing that the French legislators seem as short-sighted as legislators on this side of the Atlantic. The likes of ISIS will come and go in a matter of years or decades, but power - once given - is difficult to take away.
5
“'The means of surveillance for anticipating, detecting and prevention of attacks will be strictly limited,' he promised."
Honest. Really.
Honest. Really.
3
Is this not the very French idea of the State as Protector, Father, Arbiter, Guaranteer of every good thing in life?
1
Once a police state, such as the USA. acquires the power to read all your mail and your e-mail and listen to all of your phone calls they will never relinquish that power. Congress will mouth around about it, but this development here. is permanent.
18
If you really think the US is a "police state", you clearly have never spent any time in a real one. Do try a stint in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or Russia, and try posting what you just did here in the nation's newspaper of record.
If you make it back out, we'll be interested in your report.
If you make it back out, we'll be interested in your report.
1
Your comfort with the temperature of the water just because you've been in it since it was cold does not mean the temp is safe. Nor does it mean it is not still going up.
The French realize what we have not: That the Islamist extremists represent a threat to decency and must be stopped. Make no mistake. Read the Koran.. It is filled with violence, hate and misogyny. The values therein are totally inconsistent with the American way of life.
11
"I have nothing to hide." "The innocent are never arrested, charged or convicted." "I trust duly elected politicians, absolutely." "NSA geeks have no personal lives, quirks, interests or agenda." "No one in a position of responsibility can be bought." "I would never raise my voice in protest against my government." "Secret courts are inherently just." "Why would they come for me? I'm white." "The stars are guardian angels watching over us."
2
Not surprising (Charlie Hebdo and all) but sad. There is no reason privacy, which a good democracy should protect, can't exist while also allowing certain institutions that represent and protect its people to function ie reading e-mail, etc. As wisely commented in the article, there are already existing laws to allow access if necessary. I hope the trend in France does not continue to become more conservative as it has become in the U.S. Or maybe this country was always a bit repressive for some.
Oh no. What about Libertie Equalite Fraternite?
3
Entirely justified in protecting the country from Muslim terrorism. When will we wake up? How many more Garland attacks will it take?
To those in these postings who claim that this is anti-democratic, sit up! The Muslim terrorists are not democratic - they are using our democracy to attack us.
To those in these postings who claim that this is anti-democratic, sit up! The Muslim terrorists are not democratic - they are using our democracy to attack us.
7
Welcome to the Police State, here and Abroad!
1
La guerre est la paix.
La liberté est l'esclavage.
L'ignorance est force.
Big Brother Vous Aime.
La liberté est l'esclavage.
L'ignorance est force.
Big Brother Vous Aime.
So what if you are under constant surveillance. To think you are not is crazy.
2
Liberté, égalité, fraternité? Non! At least not to "liberté" in France.
No need to call the NSA they will give you all the info you want.
Enormous, scary disconnect in France between what the people are told and what Paris does. This is a deja vu.
Terrorists are parasites and as such they need to be found and fumigated so decent people can live in peace. Having the upper hand in intelligence is not foolish but wise.
10
Instead of addressing head on the appeal of ISIS and the alienation of so many, we spy, assassinate, vilify and charge straight ahead. Isn't the appeal of ISIS and "Jihad" simply another symptom of the malaise infecting Western Culture and its relationship with the east? What more do we need - financial ruin, lack of work, homelessness, lack of health care, lack of affordable housing, suicide, huge abuse of legal and illegal drugs and alcohol, perhaps historically the worst inequality and concentration of wealth, degradation of the environment, collapse of cultural and community values, unending war and military spending and actions, and on and on. And what is the answer? Spying, assassinations, arrogance, false flag wars, vilifying other nations, and on and on.
2
'...Isn't the appeal of ISIS and "Jihad" simply another symptom of the malaise infecting Western Culture and its relationship with the east?...'
No.
No.
It's absolutely proven by history that if you allow government this type of power it will eventually be used to repress its citizens.
2
The unspoken word here is: Islam. Right?
4
Yes, of course. We are at war with militant Islam although the NYT or our national leadership would never say so because that would make us racist.
We expect government to provide a perfect cocoon of safety and if it fails once (EBOLA! ISIS! Guatemalan children!) voters vote out the miscreant politicians and vote in the panderers who promise to do whatever is necessary to keep us safe.
So, although "American lawmakers are reconsidering the broad surveillance powers assumed by the government after Sept. 11," that's once step forward surely to be followed by two steps back at the first sign of danger!, risk!, threat!
We are not only breaking the bank with our "war on terror" and the expenditure of trillions on our military/prison/espionage industries, we're also breaking the spirit of what it means to be human where some danger, some risk and some threat should actually be welcomed. And, paradoxically, I believe that will end up being far more destructive to our culture and society than some cowardly, 8th century jihadists who've got nothing going for them other than their ability to instill fear in us, making us, of course, the really pathetic cowards.
So, although "American lawmakers are reconsidering the broad surveillance powers assumed by the government after Sept. 11," that's once step forward surely to be followed by two steps back at the first sign of danger!, risk!, threat!
We are not only breaking the bank with our "war on terror" and the expenditure of trillions on our military/prison/espionage industries, we're also breaking the spirit of what it means to be human where some danger, some risk and some threat should actually be welcomed. And, paradoxically, I believe that will end up being far more destructive to our culture and society than some cowardly, 8th century jihadists who've got nothing going for them other than their ability to instill fear in us, making us, of course, the really pathetic cowards.
Where do we draw the line and decide that the risks are reasonable? Or, where do decide that we've crossed too far into intruding into people's private lives? There is no easy answer here. We have our lives out on the web, on our phones, in our email, and what used to be private is not. We've given out much of our private information so in some ways we have nothing left to conceal. Facebook and other social media apps comb through our posts to see what they can sell us. Credit card companies send us offers or sell our information to others who then send us coupons, ads, free samples, etc.
It would be nice if we, meaning the citizens, could have a dialogue with our legislators about this. Too much data doesn't do anyone any good at all. Too little and it's the same effect. But one thing that is consistent is our misplaced faith in the ability of law enforcement to stop terrorism at every level. It can't. Giving up our rights will not make it any easier to catch criminals or terrorists. They are the ones trying to get around the laws. The ones that get caught are usually caught by luck or because someone was alert enough to spot something, say something, and get listened to.
I think that France should think very long and hard before they take this step. It has not made America a safer, better place to live. It's increased our fear, intolerance, and made it easier to toss around groundless accusations or criminalize normal behavior like taking pictures.
It would be nice if we, meaning the citizens, could have a dialogue with our legislators about this. Too much data doesn't do anyone any good at all. Too little and it's the same effect. But one thing that is consistent is our misplaced faith in the ability of law enforcement to stop terrorism at every level. It can't. Giving up our rights will not make it any easier to catch criminals or terrorists. They are the ones trying to get around the laws. The ones that get caught are usually caught by luck or because someone was alert enough to spot something, say something, and get listened to.
I think that France should think very long and hard before they take this step. It has not made America a safer, better place to live. It's increased our fear, intolerance, and made it easier to toss around groundless accusations or criminalize normal behavior like taking pictures.
8
Try telling the relatives of the 17 dead people in Paris about the "groundless accusations".
Osama bin Laden changed the world. He wins.
5
Oh he's winning on more fronts than that, given Europe's myopic and short-sighted immigration policies.The jihadists and their occasional violence are distractions from the real invasion. They know they don't accomplish anything beyond symbolic gesture. And they also know that all they have to do is . . . wait. One generation or two - Western European civilisation is conquered. But in the meantime they can in spurts of violence distract the view of soft-bellied European governments from whence the real End is coming.
I find it troubling that we so blithely hand over our most basic freedoms because we're afraid to die at the hands of terrorists, without any regard at all for how we're going to live under the shadowy specter of government eyes and ears on us 24/7. The war is over folks, and we lost. Big.
5
My feeling is that with all these new 'communication' technologies, we have created a biforcated sense of society. It's all messed up and needs to be sorted out. We are under the illusion that somehow these new ways and means to transmit, have brought us together when actually, in the real/boots on the ground world, have left or enabled us to more isolated as local/State/Federal societies. People move about the globe more frequently but are less willing to assimilate due to these isolation enabling tools. It's weird.
These new digital realities foment good, and in this case bad activities that can be unhealthy and like worms bore themselves into traditional social fabrics, hollowing out any traditional sense of local, regional or national identity and requisit responsibility. Less real face time = less connected, less responsible, more selfish, more extreme.
Know they neighbor: In historical village life you kind of knew what was going on because things were in front of your face. The only way 'States' can preserve themselves is to immerse them selves in these new 'main streets, to watch and listen. It is not a very new idea, its just a new medium for better or worse. I applaud the French for protecting their traditional way of life with the use of these tools.
These new digital realities foment good, and in this case bad activities that can be unhealthy and like worms bore themselves into traditional social fabrics, hollowing out any traditional sense of local, regional or national identity and requisit responsibility. Less real face time = less connected, less responsible, more selfish, more extreme.
Know they neighbor: In historical village life you kind of knew what was going on because things were in front of your face. The only way 'States' can preserve themselves is to immerse them selves in these new 'main streets, to watch and listen. It is not a very new idea, its just a new medium for better or worse. I applaud the French for protecting their traditional way of life with the use of these tools.
1
Well, good for France, but this isn't France. Unlike our old friend, the United States has struggled with an out of control military-industrial complex that has now appended a huge and unaccountable, and often rogue, intelligence apparatus with a secret budget. Also France has a large disaffected, non- integrated Muslim community and, though US borders may be porous, France in effect has dissolved its national borders with other members of the EU. It's national security problem is not similar to ours.
The Congress needs to cut military spending, end foreign adventurism, and break up the national security apparatus.
The Congress needs to cut military spending, end foreign adventurism, and break up the national security apparatus.
7
The 70th anniversary of V-E Day is approaching in a few days. Who would have predicted in May 1945 that each of the 4 major Allies who fought the Nazi menace would have slid down the road to authoritarianism and a surveillance state while Germany remains a bulwark for the protection of privacy?
8
Not very difficult really. Society's openness is like a pendulum, when it swing to one side all the way, it will swing back because of push back or the callapse of society. Think about European civilization, it went from very open Greco-Roman where every wealthy Greek have a lover boy to Victorian where even showing ones ankle is scandalous. The same back and fourth were also well documented in China and the Arab world.
The Allied defeated the extreme Nazism but their own unchecked liberal value begin to expose their country to outside danger. Unchecked economic policies, immigration, sex created the current mix of class, religious, race tension that starts to cause a pushback for more control and security.
This is only the beginning. With more and more threat from oversea and homegrown terrorists, there will be more and more security.
The Allied defeated the extreme Nazism but their own unchecked liberal value begin to expose their country to outside danger. Unchecked economic policies, immigration, sex created the current mix of class, religious, race tension that starts to cause a pushback for more control and security.
This is only the beginning. With more and more threat from oversea and homegrown terrorists, there will be more and more security.
If surveillance like this actually worked, the shooter in texas would have been caught before he shot up the cartoon festival. Fact is, it doesn't. It didn't work for Mumbai when we had all the necessary information to stop the guy, but we had information overload) and it has not worked for several other plots/bombings either. This surveillance has some value in retrospective analysis (after bombings), but as we saw in Mumbai, all the information that was gathered via bulk collection was actually just duplicates of information gathered via more traditional intelligence methods.
5
The country that first told everyone about the Rights of Man is now changing its tune perhaps to protect its people.
4
Collecting gazillabytes of electronic data will never replace good old-fashioned gumshoe work by police who know who lives in their communities and the flesh-to-flesh social networks within which we live our actual, off-line lives.
Mass electronic eves-dropping is to unraveling terror plans as torture is to interrogation and battlefield automation is to boots-on-the-ground combat. It is an effort to reduce complex human interactions to video games, a lazy man's substitute for intelligent policing.
Sweeping surveillance programs are an over-reaction and the rage right now in the USA (Patriot Act), Canada (C-51), France apparently, probably the UK, and I suppose elsewhere.
But the fact remains that conventional intelligence leading up to 9-11 was ignored by the Bush administration; massive, intrusive surveillance did not prevent the Boston Marathon bombing; nor has it thwarted anything despite grandiose claims by officials willing to stretch the truth to continue doing it.
Policing, which has degenerated into enforcing the misery that the neo-liberal social order has inflicted on minorities the corporate elite have discarded, is, fortunately, being evaluated at this point in time.
My suggestion is to rethink policing entirely. Get investigators out of their patrol cars, out from behind computers, and back into communities. A good cop following his nose can figure out who to keep an eye on in a couple of days mingling in a human and civilized manner on patrol.
Mass electronic eves-dropping is to unraveling terror plans as torture is to interrogation and battlefield automation is to boots-on-the-ground combat. It is an effort to reduce complex human interactions to video games, a lazy man's substitute for intelligent policing.
Sweeping surveillance programs are an over-reaction and the rage right now in the USA (Patriot Act), Canada (C-51), France apparently, probably the UK, and I suppose elsewhere.
But the fact remains that conventional intelligence leading up to 9-11 was ignored by the Bush administration; massive, intrusive surveillance did not prevent the Boston Marathon bombing; nor has it thwarted anything despite grandiose claims by officials willing to stretch the truth to continue doing it.
Policing, which has degenerated into enforcing the misery that the neo-liberal social order has inflicted on minorities the corporate elite have discarded, is, fortunately, being evaluated at this point in time.
My suggestion is to rethink policing entirely. Get investigators out of their patrol cars, out from behind computers, and back into communities. A good cop following his nose can figure out who to keep an eye on in a couple of days mingling in a human and civilized manner on patrol.
3
"The bill, in the works since last year, now goes to the Senate," Doesn't the reporter mean the Senat (add accent in imagination)? This led me to believe I was reading about our Senate.
"French judges and lawyers also site the need for oversight in their criticisms of the law. " Did someone forget to proofread this article? It's cite, not site.
I'm shocked, shocked to see that the Gray Lady is not proofing the articles it publishes on line. Please correct. Thank you.
"French judges and lawyers also site the need for oversight in their criticisms of the law. " Did someone forget to proofread this article? It's cite, not site.
I'm shocked, shocked to see that the Gray Lady is not proofing the articles it publishes on line. Please correct. Thank you.
3
Is this another example of what clueless GW Bush, et al meant by how we are winning the war on terror?
So Orwellian.
So shameful.
So Orwellian.
So shameful.
3
Obama said it too. Still shameful.
4
Does the "et al" include BH Obama? After all, didn't he say we won the war on terror after he killed OBL?
1
It would seem highly ironic (in a rather unfortunate sense) if what has been characterized and vehemently defended as an exercise of free speech was tied to a series of events where the end result was a French version of the Patriot Act.
4
far too late, already entire chunks of their soil have been overtaken by these moo slim ingrates. the poison is spreading like moo ham mad's fecal emmision's. this is going to take more than ratcheting up (down?) protection of the masses to expunge this from the freedom loving who have endured Nazi, Roman, and other historical abominations.
5
How quick people are to trade their freedom for security. People of France: Rather than follow our example, why not set one for us to emulate?
8
Purely a legislative step. However it is good to get all these surveillance measures discussed openly. No surprise they are turning their sharp eyes back on themselves. Paris is known for some of the best global intel shops in the world, especially business and African intelligence. It is difficult to suppress such capabilities. Intel sharing with the UK and US, while not perfect, goes back centuries. Besides France knows more about Africa than any other major power. It is the immigrants from north and west African francophone nations that get the most attention from the authorities.
3
Didn't anybody read the exposes of one Sir Edward Snowden the wonderful Paul Revere Minuteman. Everyone should assume the government is monitoring everything you say and write. Didn't Snowden say the NSA kiddie staff joke about some very private pictures. Liberty is lost and government never gives back power like from the Patriot Act.
6
French security
Allows greater surveillance
Than our laws permit
Allows greater surveillance
Than our laws permit
Better late than never, mon ami. They're playing catch-up with the U.K., home of the Magna Carta and inspiration for Orwell's "1984," * which is playing catch-up with America, land of the freely, now freely monitored.
* working title "1948," changed by the publisher.
* working title "1948," changed by the publisher.
6
Good work. I hope it passes. Tough times require tough measures!
8
You couldn't be more wrong. Fighting terrorism should never mean I give up my freedom guaranteed to me in the Constitution.
How nice for you to have such unlimited trust in whoever might come to hold power. Or who does now. Daddy's taking care of you, and that's all right.
If this is how we have to live, then the terrorists have already won.
22
Encryption is our only defense. Even then, it has to be used very carefully:
"We have the means and we have the technology to end mass surveillance without any legislative action at all, without any policy changes. By basically adopting changes like making encryption a universal standard ‐ where all communications are encrypted by default ‐ we can end mass surveillance not just in the United States but around the world." --Edward Snowden
"We have the means and we have the technology to end mass surveillance without any legislative action at all, without any policy changes. By basically adopting changes like making encryption a universal standard ‐ where all communications are encrypted by default ‐ we can end mass surveillance not just in the United States but around the world." --Edward Snowden
5
I will take exposing my e-mails and calls regarding my private life, as long as it stays private to the world, have nothing to hide. Issue is containing it properly for what the law is intended. With the problem of radicalism the fix has to be harsh...so I say do whatever necessary to curb terrorism. How can there be an in-between...either you do all you can as a government or let citizens suffer the consequences. The US government has my blessing as well. Sorry to all those rights defenders but jeez, this is critical to a secure existence.
4
I would rather have surveillance than getting blown up. In this country, I have not heard one case where there was harm done to an innocent person by the NSA. If there was harm, where are all the lawsuits and the media coverage? There isn't any. I have a theory that the folks who are so up in arms by the so called metadata collection have personal secrets to hide and are worried about privacy. Cheaters, embezzlers,child- porno people.... are you the ones yelling the loudest?
If France wants to do this- so be it. I would imagine some of the family of the Charlie Hebdo victims would want this passed. Nothing is 100% effective- but if it could save 50% of the terror plots- that would save a lot of lives- men, women and children.
If France wants to do this- so be it. I would imagine some of the family of the Charlie Hebdo victims would want this passed. Nothing is 100% effective- but if it could save 50% of the terror plots- that would save a lot of lives- men, women and children.
12
Maybe the French should look at their banks and see which ones are financing terrorism and terrorist organizations. Then the French can revisit their immigration policies.
12
Whatever happened to liberty? We (and seemingly the French now) have lost the freedom in which name (apparently) this fight wast started in the first place by Bush Jr and his neocon masters.
In 1991 the chicken crossed the street to.. cross the street. Apparently now it does to be on candid camera.
Shred the constitution. The oligarchs (and their client, the government) are already in charge.
In 1991 the chicken crossed the street to.. cross the street. Apparently now it does to be on candid camera.
Shred the constitution. The oligarchs (and their client, the government) are already in charge.
6
Does this mean the NSA was right after all?
Go back to writing letters........
Go back to writing letters........
4
A sensible response, especially there, given the times we live in. France has historically had more strict privacy protections than we have here, and this law seems to be a response to the intelligence lapse in the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket murders.
Sad that this may be the way some of us have to live from now on.
Sad that this may be the way some of us have to live from now on.
4
Why don't Governments around the world fight the source of terrorism? The Wahhabism that the Saudis have exported for the 40 years is mainly responsible for 99.9% of terrors attacks in the world today. Terrors groups are bankrolled by Sunnis countries (Qatar, Kuwait, etc..)
It seems like Western governments would like to have the same power the Chinese government enjoys (unlimited access and control of citizens). At least Chinese politicians are honest, they don't call their country a "Democracy".
It seems like Western governments would like to have the same power the Chinese government enjoys (unlimited access and control of citizens). At least Chinese politicians are honest, they don't call their country a "Democracy".
7
Shall we substitute the optimism of trust which inspires co-existence with the problematic distrust that ostracism, terrorism & reactionary state surveillance poses? Voltaire in his epic, "Candide" chided the Enlightenment philosophers who advocated fondling the snake that devours us until it has eaten our hearts away. France now believes that ISIL is a snake that must be snuffed out of it's hole. Who will be the new literary equivalent of Voltaire be in absentia to return a sense of relativism in the face of the new Inquisition? He believed that “A State can be no better than the citizens of which it is composed. Our labour now is not to mould States but make citizens.” Then, how does the dominant French culture become more inclusive of Islamic fundamentalist citizens who are often misunderstood, and ostracized by those who don't understand their refusal to assimilate as well as their distrust of those in power and deep resentment of their position as outsiders in their own adopted country. Unfortunately it seems that spying on private citizens will only deepen the distrust and suspicion within the citizenry while purporting to stop the spread of terrorism. This is how the State molds the citizens into a dark mirror of the distrustful government.
6
'...French culture become more inclusive of Islamic fundamentalist citizens...'
It is beholden on the immigrant to assimilate into their new country, not the reverse.
After all, if the old country was so great, why did they leave in the first place?
If the old ways are not left by the wayside, what will occur is the immigrants will recreate the failed society from whence they came?
How does this benefit anyone?
It is beholden on the immigrant to assimilate into their new country, not the reverse.
After all, if the old country was so great, why did they leave in the first place?
If the old ways are not left by the wayside, what will occur is the immigrants will recreate the failed society from whence they came?
How does this benefit anyone?
if there is nothing to hide, then such a law is 'no big deal'.
4
Would you mind if we put a TV camera in your bedroom, then?
We need to be sure that you're not concocting terrorist plots with your "lover".
We need to be sure that you're not concocting terrorist plots with your "lover".
Here's my prediction: In the USA the next great social and civil rights issue is going to be economic inequality. In Europe it will be the struggle between western civilization/culture vs. threats to it such as violent jihadism. Technological snooping will play an ever-growing part in all of it.
4
What do you mean by income inequality. The phrase, by itself is meaningless. It is almost certain that you and I have different incomes. Is that not unequal. But I don't think that is what you mean. So please tell me what do you mean about that.
3
I said "economic inequality," not "income inequality." It will be as great a threat to democracy as religious fundamentalism could be.
I agree with your view. However, given that, e.g., in the UK no one at all seems to be in charge of immigration policy (the UK is still handing out more new citizenships than any other EU nation, and the lion's share of those are still going overwhelmingly to Pakistanis and Nigerians), its borders are a shambles, and it refuses to begin conveying what it is pleased to call "British values" by, for starters, castigating a Lord Chief Justice who suggested that in the name of "fairness" Muslim women witnesses in court should have the right to remain veiled and by doing so setting up a lower bar of scrutiny for veiled Muslim women than other female witnesses. Not to mention the white flight from areas like Aldgate East, which is virtually a foreign country set up within reach of Westminster in which all the local women are veiled.
With governments this spineless and the demographic projections what they are, it's not too hard to see where that struggle will end.
With governments this spineless and the demographic projections what they are, it's not too hard to see where that struggle will end.
So much for Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
I hope to God someone does something about all the ridiculous "speed cameras" in Montgomery County, Maryland. What a scam.
I hope to God someone does something about all the ridiculous "speed cameras" in Montgomery County, Maryland. What a scam.
3
Hate to say it again, but this is an election year or near to one. Maddening that an increase in liberty restrictions would occur at this time, instead of a state limitation. Restrictions on judicial review indeed - any prior restraint of liberty in a democracy must be strictly scrutinized.
1
Interesting to reflect how adamant and critical some European countries became after Snowden's efforts to "expose" the US system.
3
Snowden is now in Russia because he wanted freedom? Great choice. I hope he stays there.
1
Finally. Good sense in a violent world.
4
The entire world has become victims of extremist Islamic terrorism, as measured by a significant reduction in quality of life, from the security gauntlets at airports to the requirement of constant surveillance by governments.
The collection of random data on citizens is an expensive and unproductive replacement for "intelligent" surveillance that keeps an eye out for those most likely to sympathize with and join the extremist terrorist groups.
The collection of random data on citizens is an expensive and unproductive replacement for "intelligent" surveillance that keeps an eye out for those most likely to sympathize with and join the extremist terrorist groups.
4
Many of the European countries are facing this problem, but France is doing so much more acutely. This is a byproduct of the old Colonial days when Europe was trying to divide up the world for their own benefit. Now all those people that were subjected to the whims of their "masters" are living with them and have not assimilated into that culture. This will be a problem for a long time.
2
Ironic that the Third World countries that were former colonies are doing much better than the ones that were not.
One can only imagine the abuses of this had it been in the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
8
Excellent reporting, Ms. Rubin. What's the old quip about "targeted" laws? That their target is you? Hmm...
1
This action validates the rationale for the Patriot Act. Government respect for privacy must yield to its responsibility for protecting human life.
1
Government has no responsibility to protect human life. We all die one way or another. Government has limited purposes and they do not need to restrict our individual liberties to achieve them.
1
The Chritian-Judeo West is at war with a viscious, paranoid, yet amorphous Islamic enemy out to murder our citizens and destroy our society. Western governments need the tools to thwart these cruel, self-righteous, and haughty bullies. Vice La France!
5
What frustrates me about these laws that infringe on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism is that it fails to recognize that terrorists use social media networks with impunity.
37
The landline Telephone is social media too.
1
Protecting the homeland from terrorism is becoming the fashionable phrase of democracies that will lead to their undoing as governments march towards embracing fascism.
62
Dear Paul, It is hard to believe that Germany and Japan are more Democratic than America is today. To all the American Service men who died in battles during WW2 and thereafter "You died in Vain"..!
Totalitarianism Bill Advances in France Giving Spy Agencies Vast Powers Like the American CIA/NSA Secret Government - The Patriot Act..!
Totalitarianism Bill Advances in France Giving Spy Agencies Vast Powers Like the American CIA/NSA Secret Government - The Patriot Act..!
3
You know, Paul, your warning is wise, and yet . . . I think Sinclair Lewis said in the 1930s, (I'm paraphrasing) "When fascism comes to America it will arrive draped in the American flag and carrying a cross." So, that was in the 1930s. I've been hearing from progressive friends since the 1970s that we are headed toward fascism. I'm still waiting. When's it going to happen? Just after Memorial Day Weekend?
1
Nonsense. The real threat is mass-immigration from the area that exports a culture of terrorism around the world.
6
I have seen so many conservatives commenting regarding how we should be following our own Constitution, yet they have no problem accepting the Patriot Act as abiding by that piece of paper; anything to state we are safe.
France should take note.
France should take note.
20
You do know there is a bi-partisan bill going through congress NOW that reins in the collection powers of this act.
Thank Eric Snowden.
Thank Eric Snowden.
As a conservative myself I strongly disagree with what you think my stance on the patriot act might be.
Can anyone be so literal? Two can play: Planned Parenthood has no problem stretching the Constitution beyond recognition based on nothing more than "penumbras and emanation" discerned by old, white, Justice Harry Blackmun.
Wake up time. Reality. France must act before everyone gives up the Euro-ship and departs.
5
A massive U.S.-style surveillance system wouldn't have prevented the Charlie Hebdo attack, anymore than ours in the U.S. prevents our weekly mass shootings. This is reactionary.
I feel so much safer now.
5
Is it just me, or were the French screaming bloody murder about the U.S. doing this the day before the Hebdo attack.
12
Dan, we all learn by experience. Why do we have to remove our shoes at airports? Experience.
1
What you are seeing is the direct consequences of the most recent elections in France, which saw enough of a rise in right wing momentum that it shifted some of the political power. So the French will see this as one of the first major moves undertaken and they'll largely be repulsed and will reverse course in the next election.
1
What ever happened to "Liberty...Equality...Fraternity?"
8
What does Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity have anything to do with whether the Govt can monitor ones internet usage?
Islamic terrorism.
1
They were guillotined by Robespierre and his heirs in Haiti, Vichy, Mali, Cambodia, Palestine, Algeria and Vietnam.
Welcome to the future. Reality.
9
You'd think France would have learned it's lesson about Authoritarian Power Grabs by now but apparently they are so frightened that they will give up what little Liberté they had left to them and will now live as hostages to be tossed back and forth between Violent Islamists and Authoritarian Plutocrats.
17
What authoritarian power grab are you referring to? How the NSA stored a lot of data about who is calling who and never did anything with it, and even if it wanted to, couldn't do much with it except go back ex post facto and look for footprints to some attack? The hysterics and heavy breathing around this thing are just too much for me to take. Wait till there's another major attack and watch most of the people complaining about the government here complain that whoever is in charge is inept for not knowing the attack was going to occur.
1
Good point. Look at Algeria.
1
technological enslavement is the future of mankind.....
38
All gloom and doom again, huh?
I understand and appreciate the difficulties faced by France with respect to terrorism, both domestic and imported. It is a serious issue, indeed and it is likely to be an enduring one, as well. However, the mass surveillance solution is both impractical and low yield. Why?
First of all, "strong" encryption is demanded by businesses and others to secure their communications. Inserting a "backdoor" renders the entire concept of data security irrelevant (if data can be accessed by the government, it can and will be accessed by others). Since this encryption is open-source and readily available (albeit not too easily used), it can't be circumvented nor defeated. Only lazy or insufficiently careful people will be (potentially) detected.
Second, the "yield" of non-targeted surveillance will be near zero, if the US and French experience is any indicator. Terrorists are perfectly well aware of these developments and know how to circumvent them.
Third, the computer algorithms required to survey terabytes of data miss oblique references, vague allusions and other evasions.
Finally, even actual terrorists, when identified, are not successfully tracked by law enforcement: witness the recent Charlie Hebdo and Texas events, committed by known "persons of interest".
In short, this infringement of civil liberties won't work and, when that's recognized, this legislation will serve as a pretext for yet more intrusive measures to "overcome" limitations in existing measures.
First of all, "strong" encryption is demanded by businesses and others to secure their communications. Inserting a "backdoor" renders the entire concept of data security irrelevant (if data can be accessed by the government, it can and will be accessed by others). Since this encryption is open-source and readily available (albeit not too easily used), it can't be circumvented nor defeated. Only lazy or insufficiently careful people will be (potentially) detected.
Second, the "yield" of non-targeted surveillance will be near zero, if the US and French experience is any indicator. Terrorists are perfectly well aware of these developments and know how to circumvent them.
Third, the computer algorithms required to survey terabytes of data miss oblique references, vague allusions and other evasions.
Finally, even actual terrorists, when identified, are not successfully tracked by law enforcement: witness the recent Charlie Hebdo and Texas events, committed by known "persons of interest".
In short, this infringement of civil liberties won't work and, when that's recognized, this legislation will serve as a pretext for yet more intrusive measures to "overcome" limitations in existing measures.
128
"Second, the "yield" of non-targeted surveillance will be near zero, if the US and French experience is any indicator."
How do you know this? Do you work for the FBI or NSA and have access to classified information?
How do you know this? Do you work for the FBI or NSA and have access to classified information?
7
@Dave: Even the President's own oversight board (PCLOB) -- who do have access to the classified info -- said as much. Every effort at touting its effectiveness has fallen apart under scrutiny.
1
Dave, if they'd caught terrorists, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
1
This will surely go down in history with the other "necessary adjustments" we've seen in the US like the Alien and Sedition Act, anti-German-American propaganda during WWI and Japanese internment. To say nothing of the "Patriot Act".
It's not just a question of what makes us safer -- totalitarianism would be quite safe, I'm sure. It's what preserves our safety AND our values.
It's not just a question of what makes us safer -- totalitarianism would be quite safe, I'm sure. It's what preserves our safety AND our values.
25
At the age of internet, the notion of Freedom is taking a hit...somewhat euphemistically,
the pattern sounds vaguely familiar. Under the umbrella of "...let's fight terrorism...", doors will be wide open to collect literally all sorts of data,
and,
let's make a bet that within long, in France, someone under the name of Edouard Snaudene (from Brittany) could come forward to make some bold revelations as to how we are being thoroughly manipulated...
Kind of sad, however this is one side of...progress.
the pattern sounds vaguely familiar. Under the umbrella of "...let's fight terrorism...", doors will be wide open to collect literally all sorts of data,
and,
let's make a bet that within long, in France, someone under the name of Edouard Snaudene (from Brittany) could come forward to make some bold revelations as to how we are being thoroughly manipulated...
Kind of sad, however this is one side of...progress.
10
We can't rush to judgment here.
Geographically, France is very close to large terrorist groups of all sizes and shapes. The US is not, nor will it ever be.
And let's not forget that France presciently refused to participate in the initial invasion of Iraq, knowing the hornet's nest it would create, due in part to its having an exponentially longer human history than does the US and thus a more practiced eye at contemplating potential outcomes.
That said, I do object to there being "little judicial oversight." Still, the American way is not the only way, and, if we are to be taken seriously on our notions of freedom, we need to step back and acknowledge other nations' freedom to protect themselves within their own boundaries as they see fit. See the current interpretation of the Second Amendment as evidence of our own demands for such self-protection. Indeed, we care little abut what France or anyone thinks of that.
We might not like what France is doing, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong or bad.
Geographically, France is very close to large terrorist groups of all sizes and shapes. The US is not, nor will it ever be.
And let's not forget that France presciently refused to participate in the initial invasion of Iraq, knowing the hornet's nest it would create, due in part to its having an exponentially longer human history than does the US and thus a more practiced eye at contemplating potential outcomes.
That said, I do object to there being "little judicial oversight." Still, the American way is not the only way, and, if we are to be taken seriously on our notions of freedom, we need to step back and acknowledge other nations' freedom to protect themselves within their own boundaries as they see fit. See the current interpretation of the Second Amendment as evidence of our own demands for such self-protection. Indeed, we care little abut what France or anyone thinks of that.
We might not like what France is doing, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong or bad.
11
You apparently haven't missed the 140,000 refugees who reluctantly left paid for homes and careers to escape the violence in US/Mexico border towns,
24,000 dead in 1 year.
If that isn't terrorism I don't know what is and our border is WIDE OPEN still!
24,000 dead in 1 year.
If that isn't terrorism I don't know what is and our border is WIDE OPEN still!
2
With all due respect, Michael, I'm unsure what your comment has to do with mine, particularly since you son't include verifiable data to support your numbers.
I think you also missed where I wrote the following: "I do object to there being 'little judicial oversight.'"
As such, I'm not sure I'm the one who "missed" something here.
I think you also missed where I wrote the following: "I do object to there being 'little judicial oversight.'"
As such, I'm not sure I'm the one who "missed" something here.
Especially, since all of the countries are doing this anyway. This is just the formal introduction of a standard law, that's all. if anyone believes that all of the countries are not already doing this, they are foolish. They are doing it, because they can do it. Period.
1
The real key to ending security threats in the United States is a meaningful, national ID card - not excessive snooping on everyone.
What is the point of looking at people if you don't even know who they are? Our security agencies are basically playing games. They are more interested in bulking up their staffs than they are in solving the problem.
How many of our top level bureaucrats will end up, when they retire, working for the contractors they hired to build their massive information systems? My guess is, just about all of them.
The perpetrators of the recent Texas attack, the Boston Marathon bomber, and the World trade Center bombers were all known to the authorities - do we need to know more, or do we need to act rather than play games?
Letting our government run inefficiently and out of control, while meticulously tracking all of us, is sham security; it threatens real freedom, which is based on tolerance and mutual respect, and does not stop our enemies from harming us.
What is the point of looking at people if you don't even know who they are? Our security agencies are basically playing games. They are more interested in bulking up their staffs than they are in solving the problem.
How many of our top level bureaucrats will end up, when they retire, working for the contractors they hired to build their massive information systems? My guess is, just about all of them.
The perpetrators of the recent Texas attack, the Boston Marathon bomber, and the World trade Center bombers were all known to the authorities - do we need to know more, or do we need to act rather than play games?
Letting our government run inefficiently and out of control, while meticulously tracking all of us, is sham security; it threatens real freedom, which is based on tolerance and mutual respect, and does not stop our enemies from harming us.
10
Of course you're right. There all sorts of ways to reduce security threats and reduce crime, National ID cards among them. Only National ID cards are so last century. Why not require all residents to submit to chip implants? Countless problems solved, wouldn't you say?
1
Best of luck with that national identity card idea.
1
This "sweeping intelligence bill" would only help track down lone wolves and home-grown terrorists in France. Although they are mostly minnows, they do pose an immediate threat to domestic security.
The big fish in the Middle East, like senior members of the al-Qaeda or ISIS have stopped using electronic media to communicate, since Snowden's revelations.
The big fish in the Middle East, like senior members of the al-Qaeda or ISIS have stopped using electronic media to communicate, since Snowden's revelations.
5
"The new normal" is what I believe we are to call this. The surveillance state has reached apogee and the second stage is now separating. The same technologies that permit a global economy facilitate global surveillance.
These systems will never not be a part of our lives from here forward, and they are in the process of going global. They will also, naturally, becoming ever more fine-grained as well.
During the cold war, nuclear technology and proliferation made it so that no place on earth was safe, but the nature of that technology rendered it unusable except as a kind of perpetual suspended threat, hanging over all our heads. In the post Cold War era, surveillance technology has taken its place; it is proliferating and is being built out with the same rapidity as the nuclear era appeared -- a couple decades.
And we have yet to adequately satirize the Dr. Strangeloves of this era, or the exact nature of this new domineering technological regime, the era of surveillance.
These systems will never not be a part of our lives from here forward, and they are in the process of going global. They will also, naturally, becoming ever more fine-grained as well.
During the cold war, nuclear technology and proliferation made it so that no place on earth was safe, but the nature of that technology rendered it unusable except as a kind of perpetual suspended threat, hanging over all our heads. In the post Cold War era, surveillance technology has taken its place; it is proliferating and is being built out with the same rapidity as the nuclear era appeared -- a couple decades.
And we have yet to adequately satirize the Dr. Strangeloves of this era, or the exact nature of this new domineering technological regime, the era of surveillance.
8
And the nuclear technology you mention has never been removed. Worse, as recent events attest, the physical technology itself is crumbling and becoming unmanageable (8" floppy disks!), as the demoralized personnel tasked with round-the-clock vigilance and control have severe disciplinary and leadership problems. We'd all breathe easier if this issue was addressed NOW, before we have an unbelievably horrible "accident". However, congress treats these nuke sites as "earmarks", and will not put federal funding in place to rectify the problems, at the same time asking for huge increases in an already bloated "defense" budget. that benefits the defense industry only. A sad waste of taxpayer dollars amid incompetent prioritization of real concerns.
1
I know nothing about French politics. Is their House as screwed up as ours?
5
Let me get this straight, there is a public law proposed for mass surveillance in France. This law will allow the state to monitor all electronic data in order to "protect French citizens from terrorism." Terrorists, aware of this law, and not wanting to get caught, will then avoid internet communications.
It sounds like this law is being proposed for non-terriorist French citizens. Could those citizens be journalists? Politicians? Entrepreneurs? Political dissidents? Muslims? Intellectuals? Corporate employees? Lawyers?
This makes the French philosopher Michel Foucault's discussion of the panopticon look quaint. (The panopticon is a tower placed strategically in the middle of buildings, such as prison buildings, that allows for a single watchman to observe inmates of an institution without the inmates being able to tell whether or not they are being watched with the idea being that inmates feel and act as if they are being watched at all times which encourages them to control their own behavior.)
Mass surveillance, using Foucault's prison panopticon analogy, will encourage everyone to self-monitor all of their internet communication.
The hero, Edward Snowdon, who blew the whistle on the US government's mass data mining, let us know that every email, every phone call, every credit card transaction, every internet cite visited, everywhere one carries their phone (map surveillance), etc., is monitored by our government.
Don't pass this law.
It sounds like this law is being proposed for non-terriorist French citizens. Could those citizens be journalists? Politicians? Entrepreneurs? Political dissidents? Muslims? Intellectuals? Corporate employees? Lawyers?
This makes the French philosopher Michel Foucault's discussion of the panopticon look quaint. (The panopticon is a tower placed strategically in the middle of buildings, such as prison buildings, that allows for a single watchman to observe inmates of an institution without the inmates being able to tell whether or not they are being watched with the idea being that inmates feel and act as if they are being watched at all times which encourages them to control their own behavior.)
Mass surveillance, using Foucault's prison panopticon analogy, will encourage everyone to self-monitor all of their internet communication.
The hero, Edward Snowdon, who blew the whistle on the US government's mass data mining, let us know that every email, every phone call, every credit card transaction, every internet cite visited, everywhere one carries their phone (map surveillance), etc., is monitored by our government.
Don't pass this law.
42
'...let us know that every email, every phone call, every credit card transaction, every internet cite visited, everywhere one carries their phone (map surveillance), etc., is monitored by our government...'
What an inane comment.
No one cares about anyone's email containing their grandmother's chocolate cake recipe.
What an inane comment.
No one cares about anyone's email containing their grandmother's chocolate cake recipe.
Our government wants to know what networks you are in, who your contacts are, what you purchase, who you talk to, who they talk to, what you look up on the internet, and where you go, among other things. All of this data, on each American, is saved. Each of us is a complex algorithm of our internet activity, nothing is private.
See this NYT link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE
See this NYT link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE
1
Shortly after the Edward Snowden revelations and a discussion on the limits of surveillance, I asked a retired major from the Air Force which he feared more: terrorism or tyranny? Without hesitation he answered terrorism. I said tyranny. One has to choose in which kind of society one wants to live.
24
Or perhaps he knows more about war and the dangers of terrorism than anyone sitting safely on their sofa, watching the palm trees sway in the wind.
Here's a little known fact: back when there was a national terror alert system in the United States, every time the terror alert level was raised, it drove what would have been airline passengers into other modes of transportation, usually cars. It resulted in more deaths (because cars are more dangerous than flying). The unintended consequence was that the small act of raising the terror alert level actually helped kill more Americans than if no terror alert level had been raised.
Modern terrorism is like the bee sting to democracies -- it can be tolerated by some, but in others it sends the body politic into anaphylactic shock, with the response producing far worse consequences than pretty much every single act of terrorism ever did by itself.
Modern terrorism is like the bee sting to democracies -- it can be tolerated by some, but in others it sends the body politic into anaphylactic shock, with the response producing far worse consequences than pretty much every single act of terrorism ever did by itself.
110
"it drove what would have been airline passengers into other modes of transportation, usually cars."
Can you document this? Admittedly this is annual data, but there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between miles driven and deaths in recent years. It can't be accepted as a "fact" that people drove in cars rather than flying during terror alerts without data to back up the assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Can you document this? Admittedly this is annual data, but there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between miles driven and deaths in recent years. It can't be accepted as a "fact" that people drove in cars rather than flying during terror alerts without data to back up the assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
4
Tell that to the families of the 9/11 dead.
Sad to hear people were actually hurt by something so juvenile as that color-coded "fear" inducer was. An MIT grad student wrote a compelling thesis on elevated terror alerts and their strange statistical correlation with low Presidential approval ratings during the Bush administration years. I'm simply shocked. Shocked.
1
All internet message providers should also ban all terrorists groups from using their services and anonymous names should be outlawed. Why does twitter allow their service to be used to spread fear ??? Same with Facebook.
2
Our right to privacy matters more than an insignificant terrorist threat.
Stalin has field tested this omnipresent, all-knowing, over-intrusive, constantly-spying kind of government that tried to control the lives of citizens.
It failed to bring stability to their society. The people got trained to be overly suspicious of their neighbors or anybody different, and be untrusting.
Additionally, this approach only deals with the consequences of problem and not with the problem.
When the politicians fail to create a good relationship with the many countries all over the world, they try to hide their incompetence by being overly aggressive at home.
Our leaders failed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, eradicate a lack of democracy all over the Middle East, to build up an open society in that part of the world or solve the Sunni-Shiite schism.
Actually, it could be said that the western governments were very instrumental in the rise of the terrorism and religious fundamentalism by overthrowing democratically elected governments in Iran and Egypt, undermining mildly socialist, relatively tolerant societies with fair treatment of women an religious minorities in Iraq, Syria and Libya, by pushing Iraq into invading Iran and by protecting the Saudi regime that used our petrodollars to spread the rigid strain of the Islam called Wahhabism across the globe...
They failed us, thus they have to start spying on us...
Really!?
Stalin has field tested this omnipresent, all-knowing, over-intrusive, constantly-spying kind of government that tried to control the lives of citizens.
It failed to bring stability to their society. The people got trained to be overly suspicious of their neighbors or anybody different, and be untrusting.
Additionally, this approach only deals with the consequences of problem and not with the problem.
When the politicians fail to create a good relationship with the many countries all over the world, they try to hide their incompetence by being overly aggressive at home.
Our leaders failed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, eradicate a lack of democracy all over the Middle East, to build up an open society in that part of the world or solve the Sunni-Shiite schism.
Actually, it could be said that the western governments were very instrumental in the rise of the terrorism and religious fundamentalism by overthrowing democratically elected governments in Iran and Egypt, undermining mildly socialist, relatively tolerant societies with fair treatment of women an religious minorities in Iraq, Syria and Libya, by pushing Iraq into invading Iran and by protecting the Saudi regime that used our petrodollars to spread the rigid strain of the Islam called Wahhabism across the globe...
They failed us, thus they have to start spying on us...
Really!?
15
'...Our right to privacy matters more than an insignificant terrorist threat...'
Please share with us all the terrorist acts carried out in North Carolina.
Please share with us all the terrorist acts carried out in North Carolina.
NM,
a city that I lived in a quarter of century ago was exposed to the absolutely worst kind of terrorism.
For more than three years the civilians were exposed to endless, intentional and indiscriminate bombardment. The people were intentionally starved and deprived of potable water. The supply of electric power and gas were cut off too.
For more than 1000 days, on average 350 grenades and bombs (per each 24 hours) were raining on the helpless citizens.
Still the people managed to go on with their daily lives and duties and keep their sanity without panicking or overreacting.
The great generations know what has to be accomplished and are willing to sacrifice for the common good.
Those willing to sacrifice their rights to protect their lives will lose both.
a city that I lived in a quarter of century ago was exposed to the absolutely worst kind of terrorism.
For more than three years the civilians were exposed to endless, intentional and indiscriminate bombardment. The people were intentionally starved and deprived of potable water. The supply of electric power and gas were cut off too.
For more than 1000 days, on average 350 grenades and bombs (per each 24 hours) were raining on the helpless citizens.
Still the people managed to go on with their daily lives and duties and keep their sanity without panicking or overreacting.
The great generations know what has to be accomplished and are willing to sacrifice for the common good.
Those willing to sacrifice their rights to protect their lives will lose both.
Surveillance by governments against its citizens has more to do with tracking those who challenge the status quo, such as the Tea Party and Occupy, than foreign terrorists, I'm convinced.
10
Typo: its = their. Apologies.
2
You need to apologize for your entire comment.
Actually, @Jim L of NC, I don't have to apologize for my comment. But I guarantee you that if our government continues down this road, I will...or worse.
1
This is, unfortunately, a case of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I (and I think most people) prefer a law like this before the next attack rather than after.
5
Can't say "they hate us for our freedoms" any longer.
5
What a surprise! One terrorrist attack on a newspaper they never cared about and every French willing to give up their civil rights. Clearly they learned nothing from us.
5
There have been several mass killings by Islamists in France in the last 2 years. Clearly, you only paid attention to the most recent of them.
There has been more than one Muslim terrorist attack on French soil, with the resultant Liberal excuses about how the terrorists are just misunderstood and that it is all the fault of the French. After all, all the French did was to give the terrorists free housing, free food, free medical care, and free welfare payments, but they did not respect their 'feelings'.
Maybe the could just contract the NSA to transfer the date it is already gathering. It would be cheaper than creating their own system.
5
France’s problems with their Islamic population are evident, starting with their rejection of French law, demanding Sharia instead – a law that is at complete odds with Western practices, a law under which women have virtually no defense against rape – and continuing through to creating extremists who take the word of the Qu’ran literally. That population is variously estimated at 6 to 9%, and is growing.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Pew Research projects that by 2030, Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the global population; by 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%).
America’s Islamic population is now around 1%, but several states – Illinois, Virginia, New York – are well over 2%. The growth rate in the USA exceeds the world rate. Thus, we can expect to follow France within 10 to 20 years.
What has happened in France has been replicated in virtually every Western country where Islam has a major foothold. Must we wait until the conditions in France obtain here before we act?
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Pew Research projects that by 2030, Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the global population; by 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%).
America’s Islamic population is now around 1%, but several states – Illinois, Virginia, New York – are well over 2%. The growth rate in the USA exceeds the world rate. Thus, we can expect to follow France within 10 to 20 years.
What has happened in France has been replicated in virtually every Western country where Islam has a major foothold. Must we wait until the conditions in France obtain here before we act?
10
While transcribing Arabic words into English, if you want the ' to represent a glottal stop, the transcription should be Qur'an, not Qu'ran.
Unfortunately, restrictions on our NSA (if there are any) will be circumvented by getting information on our citizens, "on a silver platter," from the Brits & the French.
2
Due to the fact that they 'vastly' increased the ease by which their borders can penetrated, is it a wonder?
1
I never believed that somebody as insignificant as Osama bin Laden would be able to dramatically impact the western way of life.
I was wrong.
The question is whether he was a reason for the changes or just an excuse. It’s outrageous that the governments are willing to endlessly spy on a billion people in order to arrest a handful of suspects.
The Al Qaeda has never been such a big threat to justify the draconian measures implemented in response to this miniscule terrorist organization.
The 9/11 didn’t happen because those terrorists were extremely dangerous or superbly organized but because we failed to implement the basic preventive measures and keep the cockpit doors locked after receiving the intelligence reports the terrorist might try to hijack a commercial airplane. The 9/11 happened because we let them take over a control of our “flying fortresses”
Why didn’t the Bush Administration react promptly?
They had bias that a government doesn’t have the right to interfere in a way the corporations run their businesses.
Probably a thousand times more people have been killed by the unnecessary foreign wars, our smoking habits, binge drinking, drug overuse and reckless driving but the governments never tried to change anything important regardless those problems.
We are chronically overreacting to the terrorist threat.
We care more about a single American killed by a terrorist attack here at home than 7,000 troops sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq...
I was wrong.
The question is whether he was a reason for the changes or just an excuse. It’s outrageous that the governments are willing to endlessly spy on a billion people in order to arrest a handful of suspects.
The Al Qaeda has never been such a big threat to justify the draconian measures implemented in response to this miniscule terrorist organization.
The 9/11 didn’t happen because those terrorists were extremely dangerous or superbly organized but because we failed to implement the basic preventive measures and keep the cockpit doors locked after receiving the intelligence reports the terrorist might try to hijack a commercial airplane. The 9/11 happened because we let them take over a control of our “flying fortresses”
Why didn’t the Bush Administration react promptly?
They had bias that a government doesn’t have the right to interfere in a way the corporations run their businesses.
Probably a thousand times more people have been killed by the unnecessary foreign wars, our smoking habits, binge drinking, drug overuse and reckless driving but the governments never tried to change anything important regardless those problems.
We are chronically overreacting to the terrorist threat.
We care more about a single American killed by a terrorist attack here at home than 7,000 troops sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq...
6
'We are chronically overreacting to the terrorist threat'...says anyone who is safely out of harm's way.
Google is watching us. Why not the government?
1
You think there's a difference?
Why France? Why?
Wouldn't you be better off working to limit immigration and travel to and from countries with known terrorists, making it easier to revoke citizenship and deport those who idealize killing, finding ways to reduce physical and social isolation of muslims and bring them into the French culture, create government jobs/public works where any citizen who wants a job can have one? I think assimilation and hope for jobs would go further to reducing the allure of radical religious nuts than spying on ALL citizens without even the pretext of judicial oversight.
"Religious authority" is one of the cheapest paths to power. Just claim god called you to lead and you can be in charge and brainwash followers into almost anything (see cult mass suicides for further convincing). It's alluring. Make it less alluring to weaken it.
Wouldn't you be better off working to limit immigration and travel to and from countries with known terrorists, making it easier to revoke citizenship and deport those who idealize killing, finding ways to reduce physical and social isolation of muslims and bring them into the French culture, create government jobs/public works where any citizen who wants a job can have one? I think assimilation and hope for jobs would go further to reducing the allure of radical religious nuts than spying on ALL citizens without even the pretext of judicial oversight.
"Religious authority" is one of the cheapest paths to power. Just claim god called you to lead and you can be in charge and brainwash followers into almost anything (see cult mass suicides for further convincing). It's alluring. Make it less alluring to weaken it.
5
'...reduce physical and social isolation of muslims and bring them into the French culture...I think assimilation and hope for jobs...'
So many apologists for Muslim terrorists, so few of whom live with the fall out of terrorist attacks every day of their lives.
So many apologists for Muslim terrorists, so few of whom live with the fall out of terrorist attacks every day of their lives.
The problem with laws like these is that there is no strict limit drawn for where "Anticipating, detecting and preventing" goes too far. A government can turn to spying on citizens unjustly but, because of the nature of the law, they can always justify it legally.
6
Weren't we criticized by the French for our spying tactics?
6
The U.S. government already has immediate access to my tax records, health records, real estate records, bank and checking accounts, library accounts and juvenile court record. They even know where I take this good dog for her shots.
The only important information about me they don't currently have are my love letters, which I know they''ll be coming for soon. (They are in a cigar box under my bed.) So there. Now I've got nothing left to worry about.
The only important information about me they don't currently have are my love letters, which I know they''ll be coming for soon. (They are in a cigar box under my bed.) So there. Now I've got nothing left to worry about.
3
Are you sure.
The French people and politicians would be wise to reject this bill. Here in the USA, we were sold the same bill of goods and the government exceeded and abused the power that the politicians gave it. They manipulated us with fearmongering. At the end of the day, the faithless scoundrels took away our right to privacy and infringed upon our civil liberties. USA or France... It does not matter; this bill will set your country back 100 years or more.
5
if you ain't got nothin' to hide, who cares?
8
So you'll be removing your curtains, publishing your email and bank statements, right?
Privacy is not about hiding crimes.
Privacy is not about hiding crimes.
5
I hear people say that often...and I will isually reply by saying that if you have nothing to hide...then leave the bathroom door open in your house or when you are out in public. Privacy is not about having something to hide. It is about having the right to chose what you want others to see. It's about dignity.
139
Also, it is essential for liberty.
2
The problem is that a broader surveillance power can end up in the hands of those who are not always eager to respect a democratic ideology. Unfortunately we do not realize how powerful is the surveillance tool.
4
The cameras should be on the law-makers and power brokers. They are watching us, but who is watching them?
13
This is nothing more than the continuation of the authoritarian government of Neoliberal ideology. Democracy is what happened in Greece and we can clearly see how loathsome it is to Neoliberals, and their all out attack to prevent democracy in any form from threatening their authority.
Would you really define w. bush's ideology as "neoliberal"? Is the "Patriot Act" a document defining the "neoliberal ideology"?
Freedom of speech, Right to bear arms, Due Process, to be secure in person and affects - are all right of every individual to live as free person. It has nothing to do with hiding things, getting away with crime etc.
If privacy is not important in the context of new technologies, or terrorist or anything else we fear today, then so is Due Process (because criminal get away with disspeakable things). Why not hang people on broad daylight without court process ?
More than anything else, total surveillance creates a system of corruption, where select few will hold keys to everyone else lives. If surveillance was good, then lets make EVERYTHING transparent. Make everything available for everyone to see, inspect and question.
If privacy is not important in the context of new technologies, or terrorist or anything else we fear today, then so is Due Process (because criminal get away with disspeakable things). Why not hang people on broad daylight without court process ?
More than anything else, total surveillance creates a system of corruption, where select few will hold keys to everyone else lives. If surveillance was good, then lets make EVERYTHING transparent. Make everything available for everyone to see, inspect and question.
5
@ Jack - "If surveillance was good, then lets make EVERYTHING transparent. Make everything available for everyone to see, inspect and question."
If only we could convince the terrorists to do the same!
If only we could convince the terrorists to do the same!
3
More than anything else, total surveillance creates a system of corruption, where select few will hold keys to everyone else lives. If surveillance was good, then lets make EVERYTHING transparent. Make everything available for everyone to see, inspect and question.
9
Appalling, France is the copycat of the Bush administration: using terrorist attacks to pass freedom-denying laws which are ineffective in fighting terror and put every one under a total surveillance cloud. Ugly. The police failed to protect the January victims of terrorism not because the law was at fault but because of their misguided routines. When the US chose to travel down that path after 9/11 many legal scholars and political analysts argued that it was giving the terrorists a victory. Same in France. The curtailing of civil liberties is a victory against democracy. Hollande's Orwellian newspeak is a translation of Bush's worst fabrications.
What we need is NOT total surveillance but a smart foreign policy,, a Krugman-inspired economic policy against poverty and effective police forces who act only in cases of averred terrorism. This law is a victory for the strange bedfellows of terror and counter-terror.
What we need is NOT total surveillance but a smart foreign policy,, a Krugman-inspired economic policy against poverty and effective police forces who act only in cases of averred terrorism. This law is a victory for the strange bedfellows of terror and counter-terror.
8
Bush administration? I was under the impression that this was voted on by Congress. You know the branch that actually makes the laws, and was enthusiatically supported by Ms. Clinton et al. Oh and the extension of it was promoted by Obama. Get you head out the clouds.
Obama expanded the Patriot Act. Any comments about that?
I think the often-expressed, and, if I may suggest, reflexive, liberal response (and I have been a fervent liberal for over a half-century) is a product of the difficulty we all have in appreciating how fundamentally different things are, due to new technologies.
46
Our culture is defined not by new technologies, but in how we respond to them.
I work in the Intel business. All the people who are worrying about their privacy are laughably uneducated about these technologies. Nothing that anyone says or does, even if illegal, is of absolutely no interest to the NSA, et al. It is so horrendously difficult and expensive to find the bad actors that it is simply an uneducated ludicrous ego that thinks the government wants to listen to soccer moms, adulterous spouses, pot-dealing adolescents, or even domestic murders. Just the real deal bad actors. Unless, of course, one of them is your best friend. :0
I have just one plea, give this law an honest name, not something like patriot act, which denounces all rightful concerns as unpatriotic. Only hypocrites use euphemisms.
45
Why are all of us trying to keep secrets? What are we all trying to hide? The energy that we put into trying to keep our own behavior behind triple thick blackout shades would be better devoted to ripping the blackout shades away from the windows of public officials. Rather than “privacy”, we should work toward values like “transparency” – “tolerance” – “accountability” – “respect for the values of others”. These values often run directly counter to “privacy” as a value.
1
Agree! And the deluded sheep will be bleating; "Where was your intelligence when the next major attack succeeds!"
That is completely untrue. What you are advocating is a country of collective borgs and a loss of individuality, liberty, and privacy. I have the god given right to privacy and to share what I want about myself and I intend to keep it. Next will be total government and corporate control of every aspect of our lives.
1
Those who deny liberty to others don't deserve it themselves.
2
Why, with just a little effort france too can morph into a nasty little police state, just as the US has. Lovely.
97
Yes, let's keep our police state here to protect our corporate oligarchy rather than protecting our citizens.
2
Get a grip Phil. Travel to Venezuela or Russia or China to see real police states (and try to criticize those countries in writing while you're there). You never had it so good.
Living in a free society requires guts, which we lack.
1
As we have seen with ISIS, evil-doers can exploit rapidly advancing technologies like wireless communications and weapons development. The problem is the perpetual lag between new technologies and the ability of governments and judicial systems to monitor and regulate them. Unmanned aircraft (drones) is another technology that is barely regulated but capable of being turned against first world countries that are, for now, in control of the technology.
1
Bien, vous aussi La France ?
Maybe we could learn something from this to stop the attacks across our nation.
1
We have learned that "liberty" has a new definition - the right to obey the NSA.
The Internet Age is rapidly making this concern for privacy purely academic. The privacy that was possible for a few decades is evaporating. Now, we can all know anything and everything about everyone else because it’s all for sale at the right price. And, like the exit you forgot to take on the freeway, we can’t just reverse course back to the pseudo-privacy we used to think we had.
8
If your neighbor's curtains are open, you can still choose not to look inside. Society and culture are partly products of technological change, but also of moral choices.
What is inherently moral or immoral about this?
When people lived in caves in small, nomadic tribal groupings, there was no privacy. There was precious little added as civilization advanced. In general, you did your thing, or did somebody else’s thing, while people watched and offered helpful critiques. This notion of privacy is a modern invention and we might not be able to afford it.
When people lived in caves in small, nomadic tribal groupings, there was no privacy. There was precious little added as civilization advanced. In general, you did your thing, or did somebody else’s thing, while people watched and offered helpful critiques. This notion of privacy is a modern invention and we might not be able to afford it.
Readers with an ear for history will note the tendency of people/countries to overreact when crisis strikes. In the US, 9/11 led to the Patriot Act. In France, Charlie Hebdo has now led to a similar knee-jerk intrusion into personal privacy.
Collecting metadata to protect people and their freedoms is smart. Collecting metadata indiscriminately across the population – without judicial review and assessment of just cause – is just plain wrong, it’s destructive and wildly prone to abuse.
Take note that today a bi-partisan (yes, bi-partisan) movement in the US congress is moving ahead to curtail the wreckless excesses of the Patriot Act. The French, hopefully, will learn this lesson in less time than it took us here in the US.
Collecting metadata to protect people and their freedoms is smart. Collecting metadata indiscriminately across the population – without judicial review and assessment of just cause – is just plain wrong, it’s destructive and wildly prone to abuse.
Take note that today a bi-partisan (yes, bi-partisan) movement in the US congress is moving ahead to curtail the wreckless excesses of the Patriot Act. The French, hopefully, will learn this lesson in less time than it took us here in the US.
37
Metadata is just that and can be gathered indiscriminately without any affect on the population. If certain words and phrases are captured, at that point a warrant should be needed to read the actual document.
That said, anyone who does not know that the internet is inherently insecure is a fool.
That said, anyone who does not know that the internet is inherently insecure is a fool.
When there's no (visible) threat it's easy to speak of civil rights and criticize the government, denouncing them for their intrusions into our lives. However, when the "wolf is knocking at the door", how quickly those same protests fade.
10
What wolf? A handful of mad men and some minor amount of lives lost? The wolf is our government!
The "Wolf at the door" is sometimes real, sometimes related to the perception of a threat. It's different things to different people. This "fear" of terrorism is becoming the new normal. We will be dealing with reality vs. perception for decades to come.
Like their revolution; not in moderation.
Very French.
Very French.
1
[Gallic shrug]. A pity; I always thought the French were smarter than that, and pretty well committed to 'give me liberte or give me death.'
5
Sadly this is what a democracy looks like if we are to survive in this electronic age. I am all for it...sadly.
72
"It's a democracy...IF you can keep it." said B. Franklin to an inquiring woman when asked what type of gov't they were creating.
Sadly, Bo, you have no democracy if you willingly accept this to survive.
Or how about: Those who believe they can exchange their freedom for security will soon find they have neither.
It's well meaning people like you that will be the downfall of the US experiment.
Sadly, Bo, you have no democracy if you willingly accept this to survive.
Or how about: Those who believe they can exchange their freedom for security will soon find they have neither.
It's well meaning people like you that will be the downfall of the US experiment.
7
I disagree, Bo. This is what a democracy looks like ONLY IF we do not stop and bother to listen and study and find the root causes of the world we have collectively created. We, collectively, through our thoughts, actions, behaviors, and beliefs have created these problems and this is only smokescreen to provide political coverage to appease a public that does not own up to their responsibilities for being citizens of their own countries and the world.
7
I can't stop you from being all for it. But please note: if the state knows everything about you, keeps your records in perpetuity, monitors your ever move, and even has cameras in your 'free space' (one of the provisions of this law), we can't even use the word 'democracy' any more. So no, it's not what democracy looks like.
7
So the darkness descends.
23
Please, relax and have a gin and tonic.
Yeah, SB, have a gin and tonic. Never mind all that civil liberties, total surveillance, corporate/government watching, potential for abuse, historical precedents, stuff. The price of liberty is just to give up and let Big Daddy do what Big Daddy does. Just relax and let it happen. That's the way to ease the next authoritarian government that wants to take your money, strip you bare, and keep you from doing anything at all to change it.
1
In the United States, the privacy absolutists would risk the lives of every man, women, and child in the country to protect their selfish pursuits. France doesn't appear to be infected with this kind of anarchism.
1
You need to revisit the definition of anarchism. "The first rule of government is to call things by their rightful name." -Confucious
5
I've always considered the people of major players in Europe like France, Germany or England to be much more involved and resistant to change like this. I hope if a bill like this actually passes, their agencies exercise proper transparency. If not, I wish you luck in your endeavors, France. Do not let the powers that be decide what is the necessary level of discretion. If you need a reminder of potential results of a bill like this, take a gander at what is the American surveillance system.
1
Over and over throughout human history freedom has been placed on security's chopping block. To mix metaphors it is a very slippery slope, It is sad to observe France tumbling down it.
9
Sounds like France is trying to catch up to the US.
2
”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” - Ben Franklin
109
The idea of reasoning with terrorists without force or with appeasement is naive, and I think it's dangerous.
2
That old saw is so often quoted as an alternative to thinking before writing.
"temporary security"? We are talking about survival in an ethnic war, here. The Islamic community in France is not looking for fair and equal treatment. They are striving, as in almost every country where they've achieved a Muslim majority, towards imposition of their way of life. They've achieved local Sharia in many of their enclaves in many countries, the alternative being their visiting terror on those that oppose them.
Use your own brain. Ben's has been rotting in the grave for a couple of centuries now.
"temporary security"? We are talking about survival in an ethnic war, here. The Islamic community in France is not looking for fair and equal treatment. They are striving, as in almost every country where they've achieved a Muslim majority, towards imposition of their way of life. They've achieved local Sharia in many of their enclaves in many countries, the alternative being their visiting terror on those that oppose them.
Use your own brain. Ben's has been rotting in the grave for a couple of centuries now.
All the French have to do is look at the ten of thousands of Americans rotting in jails all over our country because they have been scoped up in the NSA surveillance nets. People have become afraid to communicate with each other and Library usage has dropped and no one uses the internet anymore because of the NSA surveillance state. Thank you Republicans.
Well none of that true but we might as have the fun saying since it presented as reality.
Well none of that true but we might as have the fun saying since it presented as reality.
4
In this time of individual acts of terrorism this move is needed to prevent sneak attacks. However the spectrum can not be so overwhelmingly broad so as to invade the private security of ordinary citizens .
1
Did the French learn nothing from our disaster with the Patriot Act? Passing this law means that terrorists have won in France.
Just like in the US, we get the government that we deserve. People who trade liberty for a feeling of security will neither receive nor deserve either.
Just like in the US, we get the government that we deserve. People who trade liberty for a feeling of security will neither receive nor deserve either.
65
I would also point out that all the critics of the Mohammed cartoon gig that came out yesterday are also a victory for the terrorists. People are willing to throw out free speech rights to avoid offending Muslims. The first amendment is actually in place to protect offensive speech.
4
So much for all the Eurpoean yelling at the NSA, I guess.
59
Why? It's one thing to be spied on by your own government, quite another to be spied on by a foreign power.
Give up all your rights in the name of "defense" and "security" from a faceless enemy: "terror". Live in fear and don't think about the consequences of giving up your hard-won rights.
So this is how "democracy" (if you can still call it that) crumbles. A totalitarian state, not accountable or responsive to its citizens, will lay waste to the planet.
Oh wait, that's already happening. Have you seen the destruction of rain forests in Indonesia and surrounding countries as palm oil "plantations" are put in place? The global reach and power of transnational corporations is beyond the control or influence of any group like the United Nations, and most certainly not by any individual country.
If we're in need of "defense" and "security", it's from and against these corporations, not relatively powerless groups of religious extremists.
So this is how "democracy" (if you can still call it that) crumbles. A totalitarian state, not accountable or responsive to its citizens, will lay waste to the planet.
Oh wait, that's already happening. Have you seen the destruction of rain forests in Indonesia and surrounding countries as palm oil "plantations" are put in place? The global reach and power of transnational corporations is beyond the control or influence of any group like the United Nations, and most certainly not by any individual country.
If we're in need of "defense" and "security", it's from and against these corporations, not relatively powerless groups of religious extremists.
54
I would be more accepting of surveillance as appropriate in an era of global communications if due process were observed. I don't know from this brief article where France stands. The U.S., however, has proven to be untrustworthy in establishing facile connections (eroding Freedom of Association), locking people up in the name of "terrorism," and then failing to bring them to trial because of insufficient evidence.
As a law-biding citizen, I should have nothing to fear from surveillance—if I have a chance to prove my innocence. The definition of "domestic terrorism" is so broad as to include direct-action eco-protestors and PETA. If you engage in civil disobedience, you have to accept the consequences, but those should be transparent. No "guilt by association", which is what this kind of surveillance often relies on
I'll begin to think of pervasive surveillance among democracies as justified only if due process is scrupulously observed. Otherwise, there is no justice and there is no democracy.
As a law-biding citizen, I should have nothing to fear from surveillance—if I have a chance to prove my innocence. The definition of "domestic terrorism" is so broad as to include direct-action eco-protestors and PETA. If you engage in civil disobedience, you have to accept the consequences, but those should be transparent. No "guilt by association", which is what this kind of surveillance often relies on
I'll begin to think of pervasive surveillance among democracies as justified only if due process is scrupulously observed. Otherwise, there is no justice and there is no democracy.
29
PETA supports the actions of the extremist Animal Liberation Front, and has many ex-ALF members on staff. They absolutely should be considered domestic terrorists. Just because so many dupes parrot their party line (including this paper) does not make them less of a threat.
4
Datnoyd, I agree to a large extent. My point is that the "terrorist" label shouldn't mean the loss of legal personhood and access to due process—whether the "terrorist" is domestic and a citizen or not. People absolutely should be held accountable if they choose to commit crimes in the name of causes. They are NOT held accountable if they don't get their day in court. And "guilt by association"—which is all a lot of surveillance amounts to—is just wrong.
The guarantee of due process is what keeps surveillance from slipping into mere oppression.
The guarantee of due process is what keeps surveillance from slipping into mere oppression.
1
It's a smaller country and I wonder if the potential for abuse is therefore more limited to ours---but in general, I am not sure what I think about this. It's a scary world and I can't decided which poison to pick.
9
Surveillance must be targeted, and there must be oversight. Otherwise it will be abused, and that has been proven over and over here in the United States, and throughout modern world. Once the data has been collected it becomes too tempting to not use it for every kind of bad idea ambitious people can come up with.
If you have any doubts about the French all you have to do is look at what they did to the Algerians up through the 1960s (and probably beyond).
If you have any doubts about the French all you have to do is look at what they did to the Algerians up through the 1960s (and probably beyond).
2
That is questionable. The French government is far more large as a fraction of the total economy in France as the US government is. So for the smaller French population, the potential for abuse is just as large.
2
Depressing that this is how Democracy slowly dies. By its own hand, and in the name of "protecting" us.
Terrorist attacks by definition are designed to scare people. How is giving in to those fears, and trading the basic liberties that generations have fought to uphold, not letting the terrorists win?
Even at their "best", on 9/11, the terrorists managed to kill around 3,000 people. In a country of 300 million.
And that was their high-water mark. Most attacks end in the loss of a few lives. Terrible for the victims and their families, but hardly an existential threat to our society.
We don't face an existential threat from the terrorists. We face it from our own fears.
Terrorist attacks by definition are designed to scare people. How is giving in to those fears, and trading the basic liberties that generations have fought to uphold, not letting the terrorists win?
Even at their "best", on 9/11, the terrorists managed to kill around 3,000 people. In a country of 300 million.
And that was their high-water mark. Most attacks end in the loss of a few lives. Terrible for the victims and their families, but hardly an existential threat to our society.
We don't face an existential threat from the terrorists. We face it from our own fears.
250
You make good points....but I am scared. Those 3000 people were OUR people. Our NY tribe. You can't get more personal than that......
Democracy works only when everyone buys into the concept and the rules can deal with the ones who don't. Our justice system exists for that margin, and even though there are abuses, it mostly works. Up to snuff for our standards? No. Better than most of the world? Uh. Yes. Sadly, I know this first hand.
I look at these losses of freedoms as an exercise in trust same as I might relinquish control when I go into surgery. Do what you must but get me out alive. Naive?
Maybe a little.
But it is precisely because I believe in democracy as a whole that I can absorb the idea of losing some marginal freedoms I didn't even know I had in the first place.
,.....but I am troubled by the NSA and Edward Snowden and the such so I am not so far on the other side either. Just--conflicted.
Democracy works only when everyone buys into the concept and the rules can deal with the ones who don't. Our justice system exists for that margin, and even though there are abuses, it mostly works. Up to snuff for our standards? No. Better than most of the world? Uh. Yes. Sadly, I know this first hand.
I look at these losses of freedoms as an exercise in trust same as I might relinquish control when I go into surgery. Do what you must but get me out alive. Naive?
Maybe a little.
But it is precisely because I believe in democracy as a whole that I can absorb the idea of losing some marginal freedoms I didn't even know I had in the first place.
,.....but I am troubled by the NSA and Edward Snowden and the such so I am not so far on the other side either. Just--conflicted.
1
While I am against this move by the French Parliament, I disagree with your post. Its short sighted. Terrorists to pose an existential threat. A middle east governed by medieval style Sharia law would drastically change world dynamics. France has a large Muslim population many of whom aren't interested in "assimilation", so its a direct existential threat to them. Also downplaying the killing of 3,000 people in a single day doesn't play well to me. Certainly one reason there have been no repeats is the vigilance and hard work of national security organizations worldwide. No doubt Bin Laden and now ISIS would love to have many attacks of that sort.
4
In 1964, the Sécurité Civile rounded up approximately 300 Algerian terrorists and dumped their bodies in the Seine.
Today's other alternative is to round up the French muslims and ship them out of the country.
Picture waking down the street in picturesque Burlington Vermont or one of the towns that the writer Archer Mayor features in his mysteries, you hear an explosion, and you look down and see your arms are gone.
Get real liberal American readers of the New York Times. The threat is not manufactured by our military/terrorist/industrial complex.
Today's other alternative is to round up the French muslims and ship them out of the country.
Picture waking down the street in picturesque Burlington Vermont or one of the towns that the writer Archer Mayor features in his mysteries, you hear an explosion, and you look down and see your arms are gone.
Get real liberal American readers of the New York Times. The threat is not manufactured by our military/terrorist/industrial complex.
Guess it's down to just égalité and fraternité now.
186
And this from the same region that is suing Google for privacy intrusions on their customers?
3
Even France recognizes the significant threat posed by Islamic terrorism. Congratulations to them for facing the obvious with serious counter measures.Unfortunately for all of us, Obama refuses to do the same here at home.
16
Have you guys noticed yet that half the time you're yellong at the President for his supposed destruction of civil rights, and the other half you're yelling because he hasn't destoyed civil rights enough?
21
You might want to check the news over the last six years. This is EXACTLY what Obama has been doing, and Bush before him.
7
Islamic terrorism has managed to kill a small tiny fraction of the numbers the US military has laid waste to. Who exactly is the danger to humanity and civilization? Cowering in fear and monitoring everyone is what it looks like to surrender to the so called "terrorists." Obama continued and expanded the surveillance program...what exactly is your point?
4
Heaven help us...the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
29
Unfortunately, this is the age that we are living in. There is no way around this happening throughout Europe and the rest of the civilized world. This is a brief comment but there really are no arguments against increased surveillance in the age of ISIS and other terrorist organizations and the powerful sway that they have on young men and women who see no real future for themselves.
121
There are plenty of arguments against total surveillance not least of which the Idlamic State is not any existential threat to the US.
10
If there is one shred of evidence that massive surveillance has stopped one single crime, why doesn't someone produce it? Maybe this sacrifice of liberties will eventually serve some positive purpose; I doubt it, but we don't know. We do know, however, based on history, based on our own experience from the last 15 years, that these powers will be abused.
37
In that case why is it that there is bipartisan agreement right here in the United States that the Patriot Act has to be reformed and reigned in? Should it not be the other way around?
4
As is often said, a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
44
Glib, but that only explains about one out of 100 conservatives.
2
RMAN: And a liberal is a conservative who lost their privileges.
2
Did they give it an Orwellian name like we did......Patriot Act?
158
Representative Jerrold Nadler voted against the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. Stephen Colbert asked if Nadler would have supported it if it was called,
The USA Patriot Act of America: Love It or Leave It;
or
The Patriot Prosperity Bill of the USA God Bless it Amen
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/lggm23/better-know-a-district---ne...
The USA Patriot Act of America: Love It or Leave It;
or
The Patriot Prosperity Bill of the USA God Bless it Amen
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/lggm23/better-know-a-district---ne...
Surveillance is a French word. Interesting to see how the push for increased state-control inspires a return to traditions that thwart liberty.
5
Carte blanche for intelligence services and governments to invade your privacy. A very slippery slope, indeed....
64
France faces difficult years with a Muslim population that is not assimilating. They are correct to be concerned and correct to be proactive in investigating threats to their people and their freedoms.
80
Places like Charlie Hebdo insist on taunting Islam. Because they have the "freedom" to do so? If you have a bully living next door, who will KILL you if you taunt him, why would you do this? A mere cartoon shouldn't cause murders, but this is today's grim reality.
5
Much like Islam does not need defending by terrorists when it comes to cartoons or other defamatory means- democracy does not need defending by these freedom-repressing, heavy handed laws.
Both these actions entirely miss the mark of what the Islam or democracy stand for.
Both these actions entirely miss the mark of what the Islam or democracy stand for.
3
terror attacks are no threat to freedom, yet mass surveillance is. Also, non-assimilation of Muslims is no reason for mass surveillance.
1
America to France: any bill that consists largely of the words "trust us" should be immediately dismissed out of hand. Believe us, we know.
Trust us.
Trust us.
147