France Broadens Surveillance Powers; Wider Scope Than NSA 169
krakman writes "With the NSA disclosures, French media was 'outraged'. Yet they appear to be worse than the NSA, with a new law that codifies standard practice and provides for no judicial oversight while allowing electronic surveillance for a broad range of purposes, including 'national security,' the protection of France's 'scientific and economic potential' and prevention of ;terrorism' or 'criminality.' The government argues that the law, passed last week with little debate as part of a routine military spending bill, which takes effect in 2015, does not expand intelligence powers. Rather, officials say, those powers have been in place for years, and the law creates rules where there had been none, notably with regard to real-time location tracking. French intelligence agencies have little experience publicly justifying their practices. Parliamentary oversight did not begin until 2007."
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather take the chance of mass surveillance being misused
This sort of attitude is why we're rapidly losing freedom and privacy in some areas.
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, jackboots feel pretty much the same whether they're European or Muslim. Neither 'side' has a particularly defensible history. The harder question to answer is how effective a surveillance society actually is. Does monitoring every phone call, watching every street corner help you much?
My guess, given the lack of examples the NSA / FBI / CIA have trotted out is that the answer is 'no'. I'd rather take the chance that somebody will 'slip through' rather than live in a police society. Even counting up every terrorist action everywhere, one doesn't create a particularly dangerous environment. If you want to be rational about this, you would first ban cars, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, knives, kitchen utensils and cell phones. They are arguably more dangerous than 'terrorists'.
European Union flag (Score:5, Insightful)
This summary displays the European Union flag
As a french citizen, I am getting more and more upset to see the European flag used instead of France's one for stories about France. 10 years ago I was very fond of the EU, but now I realized EU is not a democracy and I am not a EU citizen. It is quite the contrary, as EU project is to destroy democracy.
I wish Slashdot could add a logo for France, even something full of clichés, it will make me more comfortable.
There are no "good guy" countries here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what we have learned is that given the opportunity, no country's intelligence/police/security apparatus is truly more ethical than that of other countries. There's a huge difference between cheap, public words spoken by politicians and what's really going on behind the scenes. If they have the technical option, they will collect and spy and monitor whatever they can.
The NSA gets a bad rap, since (a) it has access to most information and thus is most scary and (b) in the US there is the constitution, which at least in principle should curtail certain government activities, giving critics something to use in their fight. In other countries there often aren't the constitutional documents, which aim to codify personal freedoms and liberties in the same way. Therefore, in the US the surveillance opponents at least have a document in their support that they can point at, while the same people in other countries often have no such thing. In that respect, the surveillance debate in the US could be more forceful with at least some ammunition for the opponents. In this regard, other countries aren't that lucky.
However, in the end it's all academic: Surveillance/intelligence agencies will do whatever they damn well feel like doing. Whatever local laws they have will matter little. These are agencies that have secrecy baked into their DNA. They know - for the most part - to keep their activities away from the public and also the politicians for that matter.
Pass whatever laws you want, it won't matter anymore.
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
We could start with the entire process of getting on an airplane. Due to my 4th amendment rights, I should be able to board a plane without being searched by a government agent unless there is reasonable suspicion that I'm committing a crime. If the airport's or airline's private security wishes to search me, that's between me and them as private entities.
There's also the 100 mile zone where the Department of Homeland Security claims they don't need warrants for searches.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
Re:And what about the Catholics. (Score:5, Insightful)
If say 30 -50% of them profess their loyalty to the pope before the country then do you profile them?
That's not comparable. The "ummah" isn't a person or even an institution, it means "community." What the racist fuck has lost his head over is the equivalent of someone saying he's 'loyal' to his fellow christians no matter what country they live in.
Re:Islam (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever been an immigrant? Ever seriously talked to one? They left their home country for a reason - as often as not, because they have an oppressive autocracy, theocracy or dictatorship. They tend to love their new country more than their old, and why not? You love France because you were born there by random chance. They love it because they looked at every country in the world, and decided France was the best one to emigrate to.
So immigrants tend to embrace their new culture. Most people who fled Soviet Bloc countries turned into ardent haters of communism - why wouldn't people who fled Muslim theocracies turn out to be pretty ardent haters of Muslim theocracies? They may keep the religion, but in a more moderate, modern form instead of the controlling throwback currently dominant in the Arab region.
And those are first-generation immigrants. What about their children? They'll raise them Muslim, of course, but they'll raise them *French*. They'll be well-educated and (knowing children) liberal. They'll hear the stories about how bad the home country was, and unless their new country does something to disillusion them (like your racist shitspouting) they'll be patriotic for *that* country, not some country they've never been to and hear only bad things about.
Since you call them the "Fifth Column", look at the supposed Japanese "Fifth Column". According to US Army reports from the time, most Japanese immigrants were Americans first, and the concentration camps not only went against the best intelligence, but was outright counterproductive, turning Japanese-Americans against America. And then look up the 442nd Infantry Regiment - Japanese-Americans fighting for America in WW2. With 3800 members, they earned nearly 9500 Purple Hearts (severely wounded or killed in action), 4000 Bronze Stars (acts of heroism or merit in combat) and 21 Medals of Honor (the absolute highest award in the US military). Oh, and they fought many of their battle in France - your country, in a small part, owes its current non-fascist existence to immigrants fighting against allies of their native land on behalf of a country that imprisoned their families for the very logic you support.
If you are an example of the other 90-95% of France, I think your country might be better off if you do let the Muslims take over. I know my fair share of people of that religion, and none of them are as reactionary and racist as you seem to be.
Re:Islam (Score:4, Insightful)
And those are first-generation immigrants. What about their children?
That's actually the interesting question here. First-generation immigrants from Muslim countries in Europe are exactly how you've described above - they tend to appreciate and support the increased freedom of their new society. Their kids, for some mysterious reason, not so much. All the extremist Sharia BS is much more popular among Muslim second- and third-generation immigrant youth than it is among their parents. That's where you get those insane numbers from, like 20% of youth in favor of Islamic law in UK.
Perhaps it is because they don't know how life has actually been where they came from, while on the other hand there's a Saudi-funded and trained Salafi preacher in the nearby mosque who tells them epic stories about heroic mujahideen fighting the forces of Satan. One thing that our free societies aren't particularly good at, is immunizing people against aggressive brainwashing by professionals who know very well which strings to pull.
I honestly don't know why European countries don't put an absolute ban on any travel by Saudi clerics to their territory. That alone would cut forced radicalization of their youth significantly. Better yet, embargo KSA completely, and destroy it by economic means (which, due to the structure of their economy, is very feasible). Not only is that country breeding terrorism in our societies, but their own society is so retrograde and oppressive that it rivals North Korea. Dismantling it is both in our interests, and in the interests of most of their people (other than the ruling elite).
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
So, there is no actual freedom being lost then when boarding an airplane since you are still free to travel.
Just like freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon if you force people into a free speech zone; they're still allowed to speak, after all! Let's apply this logic to an entire city: If you live in a certain city, you sign away your fourth amendment rights and give the government permission to search you whenever they please. Don't like it? Move. You still have that freedom, so it's okay!
The searches for boarding an airplane go back about 40-50 years.
That's utterly irrelevant, and the TSA wasn't molesting people 40-50 years ago.
They are completely legal and don't infringe on your 4th amendment rights.
If you need a court to tell you how to think, then you're nothing more than a mindless drone. It's sad how people in a country that was founded on a distrust of government put so much trust in the government and even allow it to control how they think.