French Bill Carries 5-Year Jail Sentence For Company Refusals To Decrypt Data For Police (dailydot.com) 190
Patrick O'Neill writes: Employees of companies in France that refuse to decrypt data for police can go to prison for five years under new legislation from conservative legislators, Agence France-Presse reports. The punishment for refusing to hand over access to encrypted data is a five year jail sentence and $380,000 fine. Telecom companies would face their own penalties, including up to two years in jail. M. Pierre Lellouche, a French Republican, singled out American encryption in particular. "They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists. It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption and, in fact, be the subject of manipulation by U.S. multinationals."
No. 1 problem (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you saying corporations are NOT people? Blasphemy!
- Mitt
Re:No. 1 problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the primary problem with this is how are they going to put a company in prison for two years?
You arrest the executives [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just waiting for the long line of snooty Europeans to tell me that this proves that Europe cares about privacy, and Americans have no rights.
It does because reasons.
so a French guy named Bill (Score:2)
So just hand them encrypted data (Score:5, Funny)
If they want access to encrypted data, just give it to them. If they need it decrypted, that's their problem.
Re: (Score:2)
To: François Hollande
Subject: Your Silkroad Bitcoins
==== Begin PGP Encrypted Message ====
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this causes Apple-- and other device manufacturers-- headaches selling in France, then so be it.
Fair is fair. I personally applaud Apple for saying NO to unreasonable search and intrusion as an American citizen in US residence, even though it might likely bite them in the ass and cost them business
Re: (Score:2)
I personally applaud Apple for saying NO to unreasonable search and intrusion as an American citizen in US residence, even though it might likely bite them in the ass and cost them business.
It may not cost them business. I'm in the market for a tablet, and was ignoring an iPad because of price. But with Apple fighting the Three Letter Agencies over this, I'm reconsidering. If others feel the same way I do, it might be GOOD for business.
Re: (Score:2)
Naïve. More and more "telemetry" is built-in in Apple operating systems, making user spying "legitimate". The iDevices constantly call the mother ship and "backup" your data on the iCloud. The iDevices are running proprietary software so random hacker cannot really tell what it does (are the camera/microphone on? you're sure?).
Maybe you can prevent some of this data leak with a complex set of fine-tuned firewall rules, ensuring you never use anythi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And where did you get all this information?
Apple? It must be 100% legitimate and accurate, then!
Re: (Score:2)
Telemetry just means long-distance measuring.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saying what I was thinking, but saying it better than I would.
There is no way to outlaw math. You can outlaw sharing information. You can outlaw not sharing information. When the secret is out, and in this case it is, anyone can learn to do unbreakable encryption, then it is impossible to outlaw knowledge, and in this specific instance the secret isn't secret anymore.
In this case the attempt is to make it illegal to fail to know something nobody knows. Nobody knows a way to decrypt something e
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute you think your constitutional rights are intact.
Did you miss the bit about warrantless mass surveillance of the US people by the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
"Did you miss the bit about warrantless mass surveillance of the US people by the NSA?"
Which if it were really as good as you paranoids think it is, there would be no Apple controversy. Police agencies would be trying to lull terrorists and criminals into thinking there data is safe in iPhones, which they would be merrily decryptin. And there wouldn't be this global rash of ransomware attacks, because we would be able to identify where the threats were coming from and trace their Bitcoin transfers.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want access to encrypted data, just give it to them. If they need it decrypted, that's their problem./quote.
My thought: "We have started work on decrypting the message. Lacking the private key, we expect it to be decrypted in 10^15 years. We'll let you know when it's done".
How do you put a corporation in jail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do you put a corporation in jail? (Score:5, Funny)
Jail em all and let God sort it out
Re: (Score:3)
Jail em all and let God sort it out
Bind their hands and legs and toss them in Lake Guerlédan.
The ones that drown were innocent..... those that manage to float or get to the surface are guilty, so lock them in prison for life and throw away the key.
Re: (Score:2)
The universe, apparently, for making the mathematics of encryption possible.
Some day, maybe, we will begin voting for politicians who have the vaguest fucking notion about the real world.
Re:How do you put a corporation in jail? (Score:5, Funny)
March 3, 2015 (Reuters) - The French Assemblée Nationale today issued instructions to Juge D'Instruction Claude d'Monet, ordering that he determine the being or beings responsible for the existence of the mathematics of encryption.
d'Monet subsequently issued a Warrant and Order to Appear to God, declaring that failure to appear by the 15th of March would result in a summary declaration of contempt, an order for His arrest, and possible forfeiture of the universe.
Police have attempted to serve this warrant at the Notre-Dame de Paris several times, but without success.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be funnier if it weren't disturbingly close to the level of reality that a lot of laws relating to technology seem to be written at lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Sanctuary!
Re: (Score:2)
Police have attempted to serve this warrant at the Notre-Dame de Paris several times, but without success.
Exactly. Spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Send the warrant to the Vatican.... Then arrest you know who.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Man, France must be an awesome place to live. Their strict gun control guarantees that nobody ever gets shot there, and now this law will guarantee that they will be safe from terrorists and drug traffickers too!
And obviously their government is benevolent and never abuses its power.
I am so moving there.
Politicians are usually EXTREMELY ignorant... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the real trouble is that legally and practically speaking, these people can make decisions about technology.
They just happen to be very bad decisions, with potentially horrible consequences for everyone those politicians and governments are supposedly there to serve.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect a lot from average Joe. No-one can be an expert on everything, no matter how smart or well educated they are. This is one of the most compelling arguments for having experts in government to establish common ground rules in important fields through laws and regulations, and to provide public information on important points that average Joe might actually need to know. Unfortunately, this idea relies on governments and their experts to act in the interests of the public they are supposed to se
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it'll be like the SOX act in US law where the CFO gets to sign a statement these fiscal numbers are accurate or I could go to jail for 20 years. How is he to know that? Not the lawmaker's problem. It's the company itself that must find good enough compliance mechanisms.
Re: (Score:2)
It would start with the CEO and work down and it would be tempered by ability. If the company cannot decrypt then it is a non issue.
In the event of an order to decrypt, if the company has the capability then the CEO will be on the hook. If the CEO orders the person who actually has the capability to unlock to unlock it will move to that person if they refuse. If the company claims no ability then they would be subject to a search warrant which looks for evidence to say they did have the ability. Also if
Re: (Score:2)
It would start with the CEO and work down and it would be tempered by ability. If the company cannot decrypt then it is a non issue.
In the event of an order to decrypt, if the company has the capability then the CEO will be on the hook. If the CEO orders the person who actually has the capability to unlock to unlock it will move to that person if they refuse. If the company claims no ability then they would be subject to a search warrant which looks for evidence to say they did have the ability. Also if the CEO says no they will go to prison but so will any other employee with the capability who also refuses.
But the point of my question was how will the court know who has the ability to decrypt? Suppose the CEO says "Jones down in software engineering is the guy who can do this," and Jones says "Not me. I have no idea how to decrypt this. I think maybe Ted works on that stuff but I'm not sure." Who do they believe? What is considered sufficient evidence that someone has the know-how to convict them? If everyone in the company claims they can't do it, do they just jail the CEO by default?
Re: (Score:2)
Given it is a felony offence where people can be imprisoned they would raid the company for documents to show who would have the knowledge. There is no way there wouldn't be a paper trail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a techie, I think I'd promptly set up for a brute force decrypt. We'll let you know when it's done.
I'm complying with the order, honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You jail the recalcitrant CEO. Short of that you jail the highest ranked company official in teh country. Simple."
And what army gets the dastardly execs from Cupertino to Paris?
arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption
if you have such a hard-on for total control, you should NOT be part of any government.
Re:arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
Having such a hard-on for total control is the entire reason people get into government.
Close Up Shop (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hope that corporations faced with these unreasonable demands simply close up shop in the country. Google CEO going to go to jail? Well, Google pulls out of France and has no presence. Good luck French people with your search queries. If a corporation caves to one country then it will just embolden then next country. Better to draw a line in the sand and tell them to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that corporations faced with these unreasonable demands simply close up shop in the country. Google CEO going to go to jail? Well, Google pulls out of France and has no presence. Good luck French people with your search queries.
Microsoft would gladly take their place.
If a corporation caves to one country then it will just embolden then next country. Better to draw a line in the sand and tell them to fuck off.
Considering the history of Microsoft, i think they would sooner give all the politicians of France weekly handjobs than lose a chance to gain ground on Google. Hell, they'd give every government access to everyone's desktops if it meant they were the golden boy again.
Re: (Score:3)
It gets more interesting if the other major players join in and leave the country too. Anybody who stayed, like your suggestion of Microsoft, would be view with suspicion outside France as it would be
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because Google is the only search engine....
I rarely use Google anymore. In my view, their dominance in this area is purely inertia at this point.
I started using Bing as my primary search engine about a year ago due to the rewards program (free stuff!). I was really surprised that not only is the relevance equal to or even better than Google in most cases (for me), but that Bing has lots of nifty little gadgets in their search results that I never saw in Google. Stuff like "my ip" or inline converters
Re: (Score:2)
That's all fine and good, but then the people in that country no longer have access to the products that the company makes. That's a win for the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Google is not the only search engine and it is not even the best any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that corporations faced with these unreasonable demands simply close up shop in the country. Google CEO going to go to jail? Well, Google pulls out of France and has no presence. Good luck French people with your search queries. If a corporation caves to one country then it will just embolden then next country. Better to draw a line in the sand and tell them to fuck off.
Yeah that worked well in China didn't it.
http://www.baidu.com/ [baidu.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should race to the bottom then? Cooperate with whatever crass demands those other shitty nations decide we should oppress with? Or actually act like an enlightened democracy and say we won't help you do your shit?
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should race to the bottom then? Cooperate with whatever crass demands those other shitty nations decide we should oppress with? Or actually act like an enlightened democracy and say we won't help you do your shit?
I didn't say anything about giving in - I just said that leaving doesn't leave the hole in services that was stated or at least not for very long as that hole will be quickly filled by some other company who will give in.
In the case of China I think they do it quite deliberately so that Chinese companies can take the market once the western company has been pushed out.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is China intentionally cut out companies like Google and Facebook where in France's case it would be an unintend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google won't leave France over this or the billions they owe in tax, because it's too profitable for them. They will adapt their business practices and spend more money on lobbying.
Don't worry though, this bill won't pass. We need to stop reacting to every stupid thing a politician says, and wait until there is some reasonable risk of it becoming law. Politicians say stupid shit all the time, no point getting worked up over it.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to stop reacting to every stupid thing a politician says, and wait until there is some reasonable risk of it becoming law.
I disagree. The more they say the more the public gets acclimated to it and the more likely they are to accept it. We should take every opportunity to discredit and impugn these politicians as they will otherwise just keep this shit up until they get their way, remember SOPA, PIPA, what ever the hell replaced that?
It's not just encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists.
The same argument applies to cars, guns, knives, shoes... all used by drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists. Knife companies should be required to install a failsafe so that the blades can be remotely deactivated at the government's request.
Re: (Score:2)
Also cheese and wine. It's well known that a serious criminal once ate cheese and drank wine, so we should impose international sanctions on any nation producing such dangerous substances immediately, since clearly it is a haven for hardened criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Also cheese and wine. It's well known that a serious criminal once ate cheese and drank wine, so we should impose international sanctions on any nation producing such dangerous substances immediately, since clearly it is a haven for hardened criminals.
Well you don't want the terrorists practicing tyromancy now do you? Then they would have ALL of our secrets!!
It would be far better to ban cheese and mandate encryption purely to keep the terrorists in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument applies to cars, guns, knives, shoes... all used by drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists. Knife companies should be required to install a failsafe so that the blades can be remotely deactivated at the government's request.
I know the geek loves this argument. But it is the lawmakers who get to decide when and where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:2)
They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists.
The same argument applies to cars, guns, knives, shoes... all used by drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists. Knife companies should be required to install a failsafe so that the blades can be remotely deactivated at the government's request.
The difference being the level of control that the government has over cars, guns, knives, shoes, etc., all of which are physical items.
Open the door for criminals (Score:3)
Without strong encryption in the hands of the people, criminals will be able to rob people blind, crack their bank accounts, use their credit cards.....
Governments need to get it through their head that there is no electronic lock that can keep criminals out if the Government can get in.
Re: (Score:2)
France has always had very good human informants. Most people in contact with, entering or exiting the French justice system get made an offer to become informants at some point. Refusing that nice request created new issues.
Thats generations of interesting people who get turned into informants. They can go where cell phones would not be allowed or undercover poli
Really have to laugh at the pompous posturing. (Score:3)
It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption
News flash - the state hasn't had control of encryption for decades. Even the US classifying encryption as a munition didn't do it.
Cake and eating it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies should ensure all software sold to the French government have backdoors or have encryption weak enough to be useless, which uh would mean the French government wouldn't want to buy their software!?
The above is trying to illustrate a contradictory scenario that in many ways may happen if companies try to follow the French law. Sure in the case of phones and communication it is intended at non-government parties, but where does that line cross?
The other issue as we have recently seen is that enties of national interest will just use their own tools and the result will be a law that only hurts "law abiding" citizens.
I can typing!!! (Score:2)
FTA: "They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers...". So, encryption is mood-altering and addictive? Sheesh!
Proposal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-americanism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question. Taken to the extreme and all non-French phone manufacturers pull out of France what would be left for consumers to buy? Are there actually any French companies that make phones still? There was Alcatel? Do they still make smart phones? I would love it if the companies got together with a united front and gave the politicians a lesson in public option w
Re: (Score:2)
Only a proposal (Score:3)
But I pretty much like the other comments stating that "if you want access to encrypted data, there, you get all the encrypted data you want". It might be a good idea to coin this idea to other members of parliament to see if they can change the wording to that.
But ... (Score:2)
Encrypted Elephants (Score:3)
So I'll be the asshole who states the obvious...
So let's pretend all companies, everywhere, comply with decryption requests. What do you think happens next?
It doesn't take rocket science to realize that the next step...the very next step..is for the "bad guys" to go off and roll their own encryption, based on very well known standards.. And then..you're right back where you started.
So, to the organizations who are fighting this, I say; let it happen. You have virtually nothing to loose. And, next week, when you are asked to decrypt something that you don't have any ability to, you can justifiably laugh in their fucking faces for being so fucking worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bullet proof encryption (Score:2)
A computer system or phone is only secure if it is secure against adversaries with full access to source code and code signing keys.
Can we finally just scrap it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Outlaw encryption entirely.
Although that is obviously an exaggerated statement of the ridiculousness of the current situation we're in, I'm afraid it might turn into reality soon. There will be audacious attempts at banning encryption, and they will be laughed out. Soon after this they'll "compromise" with government-mandated backdoors in most-used consumer products. Then we'll, of course, be wondering how the hell did we end up there.
We live dangerous times, people. Keep a tight grip of your privacy and take a moral stance against g
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he only meant "outlaw effective encryption entirely" before. :-)
Re:not entirely wrong (Score:5, Informative)
here's the funny thing, he was the Ambassador to France from 1776 to 1785 and he couldn't talk any sense into them.
Ummm, that's not quite true. He did persuade them to help the Americans in their Revolution. Without that French help, we might be under the British encryption laws right now, which aren't really much better than the proposed French law!
Re: (Score:3)
Please, do not put all my fellowmen(and women) in the same basket. The quote comes from "a French Republican" not from a reasonable person!
"Les Republicains" are known to have a ridiculous police state slant. Because of them we did not have the equivalent of Miranda rights until recently. I am not sure that prosecution has to share police reports and investigative reports to the defense lawyer. And remember that in France, the defense can not really conduct its own investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, do not put all my fellowmen(and women) in the same basket. The quote comes from "a French Republican" not from a reasonable person!
slow your roll, my friend. i would never be so callous as to assume the words of a government critter was even remotely representative of how that country's humans feel. i mean, have your read the utter shit our congress critters spew? i've talked to some of your fellow frenchies (who introduced me to the term "frenchie") and they are good people. the task we face now is figuring out how to remove these critters from the bowels of our governments and more importantly, how they propagate. i mean, do the
Re: (Score:2)
slow your roll, my friend. i would never be so callous as to assume the words of a government critter
What "government critter"? The Republicans are the opposition party.
This amendment has no chance of being passed -- if you'd bothered to RTFA you'd see that the government, not being insane, is going to reject it.
Re: (Score:2)
What "government critter"? The Republicans are the opposition party.
first off, when selecting from a finite set of options, you use "which" rather than "what". second, the "government critter" is a politician. if you bothered to read the rest of my post before flipping your wig, you would have realized that.
"AlterEager"? more like "TooEager". Yeah, that's a sick burn. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is sometimes an inconvenient thing for governments. I think they got the wrong idea of Canute's tidal demonstration.
Re:Well there you have it, straight up (Score:4, Insightful)
Public freedoms are no longer permitted.
I think they're only saying that the public has no right to achieve privacy when their owners, errr, the government is concerned.
And really, if you had a herd of cattle holding secret meetings you'd want to know what's up too. They're probably not talking about how great your hay is.
And besides, the public agrees
Who else would provide the hay? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are pushing for compliance with gov't (Score:2)
Republicans are terrible no matter where in the world they are.
You do realize that President Barrack Obama and his Attorney General are Democrats, very liberal Democrats at that, and that they control the FBI that is currently pushing Apple to comply and proposing that Congress pass legislation to require compliance?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the FBI has some independence from POTUS. The FBI director is appointed by the President but serves a 10 year term and cannot be dismissed by the President. Obviously not so with the DoJ as the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.
The FBI operates under the Department of Justice and reports to the Attorney General. The Attorney General, acting on her own initiative or under the President's orders, could order the FBI not to force Apple to comply. Or the FBI may have been ordered to force Apple to comply. Either way, this type of action by the FBI is under White House control. Either explicitly or implicitly through non-interference.
Re:Fuck French Government (Score:5, Informative)
Look, I know this is slashdot, so what I'm proposing may seem radical, but RTFA.
This is an amendment proposed by "Les Republicans", the opposition party, and will be rejected by the majority socialist group in the assembly. The government is against this amendment.
Who is the fool who should be fucked?
Re:It matters. Justice Breyer "The Court & the (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with considering other countries court decisions when considering Constitutional issues. I know the the Canadian Supreme court has cited the American Supreme Court in decisions, though of course they are not bound by them.
Things like cruel and unusual punishment are open to interpretation and I'm sure our Supreme Court would consider capital punishment to be cruel and unusual, though it was originally banned due to the will of the people, at this point it is unusual punishment, mostly done by
Re:It matters. Justice Breyer "The Court & the (Score:5, Insightful)
If you accurately represented his opinion, it would indeed be shocking.
Since you didn't, it is called a "straw man."
There is nothing at all fringe about the idea that European law is connected to American law; indeed, English Common Law was adopted from the start. The earliest legal document that gets cited in US law is the Magna Carta; look it up if you think that was an American document. ;) The reality is that the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is and always was based on the current culture. It is perfectly reasonable to look to what is considered "cruel" and "unusual" by our formal allies, especially those ones who share certain parts of common law with us. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you know that the Framers of the Constitution did indeed care about European recognition of the United States as being a valid legal entity.
You extract his position on a specific and detailed debate, and convert it to a poorly generalized argument that is easily attacked. That is one floppy straw man.
Maybe someday you'll care about the things you choose to talk about enough to actually read his book for yourself.
Re:It matters. Justice Breyer "The Court & the (Score:4, Interesting)
If you accurately represented his opinion, it would indeed be shocking.
Since you didn't, it is called a "straw man."
Actually, while GP is being a bit hyperbolic, I think the argument would more accurately be called a "slippery slope" type, rather than a straw man. GP may overestimate how far Breyer is willing to go, but your post underestimates the radical shift in judicial philosophy that is occurring.
There is nothing at all fringe about the idea that European law is connected to American law; indeed, English Common Law was adopted from the start. The earliest legal document that gets cited in US law is the Magna Carta; look it up if you think that was an American document. ;)
And it is you who seemingly misunderstands the issue here. Yes, English Common Law was adopted because it was already in practice. The very definition of Common Law is that matters beyond the written Constitution are frequently resolved by citing relevant court precedent (which is often important, since the law never covers all cases explicitly).
The early US really had no choice here if they wanted to retain a Common Law system. Previously, the Colonies had been governed by English Common Law, and lawyers here had been trained in that system and would cite those cases as precedent (which were themselves often built on English cases). To simply erase all of that history after the US declared independence would be to put a huge amount of cases in legal "limbo" where judges could effectively rule whatever they wanted to with no governing precedent.
So, the citation of earlier English law was required to maintain continuity in the early US. And the very concept of Common Law allows citation of predecessors, whether native law or not. Thus, the Magna Carta may be one of the earliest legal documents that gets cited (and not as often as most legislators seem to think -- there are only one or two concepts there that still have direct import on modern law, and contrary to what you imply, that document is NOT directly binding on US law; it's mostly relevant in the precedents it has created). But English law derived some concepts in turn from medieval French law. And medieval French law in turn inherited concepts from ancient Roman law.
And there are still legal concepts dating back to Roman law which get cited in cases, if not actual documents.
The point is that these are all HISTORICAL citations from systems that are the DIRECT ANCESTORS of our own legal system. That's basically how Common Law works in finding previous precedent and concepts codified in previous rulings.
The reality is that the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is and always was based on the current culture.
Yes, and the notion is traditionally based on COMMUNITY standards. This goes for a number of legal issues, such as the idea of pornography/obscenity, where we think of Justice Potter Stewart's classic line, "I know it when I see it."
In the case of pornography and "cruel punishment," standards do change, but in previous law the idea was to look at COMMUNITY standards, whether local or for the nation as a whole. Citation of other countries' ideas would generally be confined to historical precedents.
It is perfectly reasonable to look to what is considered "cruel" and "unusual" by our formal allies, especially those ones who share certain parts of common law with us.
I agree it's "perfectly reasonable." But it isn't standard practice in US law (or rather, it hasn't generally been, until it started in recent years). The much more common citation of Common Law in other countries would be to look at historical cases dating before the US. The other time courts would occasionally look to other nations would be to resolve a NOVEL issue for which precedent did not exist yet in the US.
That's an entirely different
clearly you haven't read it (Score:2)
The reply by AthanasiusKircher does a pretty good job of explaining why your reasoning is misguided, and frankly misleading. There's no need for me to repeat the facts laid out there. As to Justice Breyer's book, which explains his philosophy at length, you might want to read it before arguing about what it says.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens in France matters in the rest of the world.
What was the last thing that happened in France that mattered in the rest of the world? Terrorist attacks don't count.
Re: (Score:2)
I am french.
Okay, this article makes no sense.
None at all. The article says:
Then goes on to show 3 amendments:
Amendment #533 -- Retired
Amendment #221 -- Rejected
Amendment #532 -- Retired
So what were the parliament supposed to have voted for?