Bill of Rights

[The shadow]

This is the Project> final version presented to the Council of Ministers on March 19, 2015
The text of the law (to read)
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/259262463/Proj ... ersion-CDM
BWK

[Grelinette]

I’m surprised by this whole debate,

first of all by the controversy aroused by the law,

then by the declarations made by the authorities on the very important means necessary to monitor the several thousand people doubtful and likely to carry out attacks in France, means which justify the law.

On the first point, the controversy, I am surprised because the surveillance of our communications has long been operational for commercial purposes.

Who has not already received a text message or a commercial email to offer a service or a product, which, curiously, corresponds to an exchange of information that you had recently with a friend or family, or a message left, even anonymously on a forum .

Take the test to send an email or text message to announce that you are going to change the sofa in the living room ... and you will receive, as if by chance, a promotional offer for the purchase of a sofa!

The debate is all the more curious since Google and many other commercial brands do not hesitate to declare that all the messages that pass through their services on the net are scrutinized and dissected for commercial purposes.
Only a few consumer associations are stepping up to denounce these practices.

Recently, a large brand proudly announced that it was going to set up a revolutionary new advertising service to warn you as soon as you approach geographically a store that precisely suits your tastes and desires of the moment: clothing, food, travel, cars , etc ... and this simply from the analysis of your consumer behavior, and your location!

Everyone applauds for this future service!

On the other hand, if we declare that the communications and the behaviors of the citizens will be analyzed to prevent an attack, then we cry to the abuse of surveillance !!!

There are of course possible drifts, in particular the monitoring of each other for purposes other than internal security, and we already have quite a few examples (already in the 80s, Mitterrand who was listening to communications from people who interested him).

Like what, surveillance is already done for a long time without too much safeguard, and finally a law can possibly bring a little order.

On the second point, the technical means necessary to monitor a few thousand questionable charactersHere again, commercial companies know how to manage and analyze hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people!

Finally, the government should subcontract this surveillance task to Google or to a large French IT or commercial group, which are already well equipped and experienced to monitor and analyze the smallest of our behavior.

Nor should we forget that several French companies had been singled out for having sold very effective surveillance technologies to dictatorships (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_%28l ... illance%29).

[Ahmed]

Grelinette, you write:

Like what, surveillance is already done for a long time without too much safeguard, and finally a law can possibly bring a little order.

Of course there is surveillance "without too many safeguards", but the existence of a law allows a significant extension thanks to a few terrorists, "useful idiots" who allow its emergence.

In addition, it is a considerable simplification to see "attacks", "terrorists", as if these categories contained in themselves their own explanation! To attack these categories is to do, under the cover of this unpleasant reality (I readily agree), the economy of questioning what engenders it ...

Bossuet, Bossuet, someone whispered that name?

It is quite clear that the mechanism that is set in motion involves a bidding up, that is the danger: the preservation of freedom will end up by its abolition. The fault lies less with those who plan this, than with those who are too frightened of this attack on their moral comfort and who only ask to take refuge in the paternal arms of the Authority (as we have seen after the events of "Charlie").

[Christophe]

The opinion of the boss of OVH on the law of surveillance / intelligence, it is the 1st host of France (and Europe): http://www.ovh.com/fr/news/articles/a17 ... seignement

[Grelinette]

I believe that one is mistaken of debate: the fundamental problem is not to know that services in charge of the security of the territory will be able legally to scrutinize the communications of the population to detect plans of attacks or to watch the thugs, but the lack of confidence we have in our leaders and those who will be able to use these wiretaps and who will probably use and abuse the possibilities that this law gives them for personal gain and for interests other than security interests of the country.

It is certain that when we see all the current politico-financial affairs which agitate the political and financial world, we suspect that there will be drifts.

To sum up, it is difficult to find a solution to this problem:

- on the one hand, there are real risks of a terrorist or mafia network seeking to carry out attacks and other misdeeds, taking advantage of this pseudo-freedom of right to intimacy to communicate,

- on the other, leaders, politicians and other powerful people ready to rush into the slightest loophole of the law for their benefit.

Choose your comrade camps! ...

[Ahmed]

It is at a deeper level that we are mistaken in the debate: by making the mistake of admitting that terrorism is a "natural" fact that arises. ex nihilo. This implies that it should be combated only as a phenomenon, in order to better conceal its causes.

Extractivism in the western periphery creates a situation of unbalanced competition which pushes those who, paradoxically, are fascinated by a way of life to which access is denied them, to take refuge in a retrograde ideology and in the use of a spectacular violence (in the proper sense of this adjective).
This "choice" only represents the inverted reality of the antagonistic power which, at the same time as the economic supremacy, claims the monopoly of the ideals of "progress" as well as the practice of concealed violence.

It goes without saying that having such an enemy gives the free rein to promote the tools of control of extractivism in its internal version (because it would be simplistic to think that the confrontation is only between center and periphery).

[Grelinette]

It is at a deeper level that one is mistaken for debate: ...

It is all very complex.

It is not a problem with well-defined causes but a general dysfunction, and, in fact, national and international with multiple connections and migrations; it is the quasi-definition of cancer metastases!

Very strong would therefore be the one who comes to understand all the ins and outs of this situation, and to find a solution.

But is it the debate to diagnose an evil deep within its origin, when we are only talking about a law of national scope for a question internal to the country?

Of course, global injustices and imbalances generate a large part of misery, then violence, then terrorism, then immigration (including that of terrorism), then ..., etc, etc, etc ...

The fact is that this violence, which our political and economic systems create abroad, also immigrates, and that internal security now requires dealing with it, starting with knowing it better, identifying it better in order to be able to deal with it. protect.

It is nevertheless surprising that within the country itself, when the attacks in January sensitized and mobilized millions of people in a single surge of protest against this violence, that we are not able now to put ourselves out. defense agreement!

The situation is still unusual:

- the authorities were first praised for their courage and speed in the interventions against the terrorists, then blamed for their ineffectiveness in the prevention.
(Let us remember that the terrorists had made stays in countries occupied by Daech, then had foiled the surveillance services by simply using the phones of their companions! ...)

- the authorities react and have a law passed to make their prevention and surveillance work more efficient and faster

- the population protests and opposes the surveillance of communications ...

I understand Ahmed's theory that explains that this enemy is ideal for our leaders to acquire all the surveillance tools for internal control of everything and anything, but can we continue to act as if the threat n didn't exist?

In fact, for each potentially liberticide law, there should be no hard law to control and punish abuses!

[Ahmed]

But, is it the debate to diagnose an evil deep within its origin, when we are only talking about a law of national scope for a question internal to the country?

It is not inappropriate to seek to see further than one's nose ... and the question is precisely not specifically internal, except to consider only the consequences.

- the authorities were first praised for their courage and speed in intervening against terrorists, then blamed for their ineffectiveness in prevention.

There is no contradiction between these two attitudes which testify to the desire to preserve one's comfort by taking refuge under the protective wing of the state: violence is only psychologically acceptable among others (it highlights , by contrast effect, our tranquility).

[The shadow]

Here is the chance to hold your representatives to account
Those who talk about democracy = freedom equality fraternity
the list of those people who will not be affected by this measure

http://www.revoltenumerique.herbesfolle ... -de-masse/