The deputies voted for article 3 of the Justice law authorizing the remote activation of microphones and cameras and the geolocation of connected objects. A particularly controversial measure, which raises fears of possible abuses.
Monitoring and protecting the population: yes, but how far? What are the limits not to cross concerning the respect of privacy and freedom? What price are we willing to pay to ensure our safety? As part of the review of the Justice Law, which follows the “action plan” for justice “faster, more efficient and more protective” announced with great fanfare at the beginning of January by the Minister of Justice, Eric Dupond-Moretti, the National Assembly validated at first reading, on Wednesday July 5, the very controversial article 3 of the bill, with 80 votes for and 24 votes against, as reported BFM TV. The deputies of the presidential camp, LR and RN voted in favor. Those of Nupes and the president of the Liot group, Bertrand Pancher, voted against.
This article authorizes “the extension of special investigation techniques to allow the remote activation of connected devices for the purposes of geolocation and sound and image capture”. In other words, the authorities will have the right to remotely trigger the cameras and microphones of telephones and computers, and to activate their geolocation in real time within the framework of certain investigations – without the knowledge of the persons concerned, of course. A measure that is far from unanimous, especially among the left, lawyers and associations, who are worried about possible totalitarian excesses and violations of privacy.
Justice Law: connected devices as snitches
As a reminder, the Justice Law had been passed at first reading by the Senate early June. It must increase the annual budget of the Ministry of Justice from 9.6 billion euros to 11 billion by 2027, which should allow 10,000 additional recruitments. Article 3 of the bill authorizes the extension, under certain conditions, of night searches as well as of the deadlines for the preliminary investigation. But it is above all the remote triggering of cameras, microphones and the geolocation of telephones and computers that has caused a lot of ink to flow. Eric Dupond-Moretti defended this measure by explaining that “these techniques are already applied” but, since they require the installation of beacons, microphones or cameras in a vehicle or in the residence of the suspect, they put the police officers in danger. He ensures that this device is accompanied by “important safeguards”in particular the approval by a magistrate – the investigating judge or the judge of freedoms and detention.
Technically, the police will therefore be able to exploit the security flaws in these devices – especially if they are not updated – to install software that allows them to take control of them and transform them into snitches. However, the Senate had made some changes to the original text. As reported BFM TV, an amendment proposed by the leader of the senators LR Bruno Retailleau provided that the use of geolocation be limited to crimes or misdemeanors punishable by at least ten years of imprisonment, against five at the start. Finally, the National Assembly returned to the version of the Government, therefore for the investigations for crime or misdemeanor punishable by at least five years of imprisonment. This measure must be authorized by a public prosecutor. Regarding the activation of microphones and cameras, it may be authorized by a judge in investigations relating to terrorism or organized crime. This concerns only “dozens of cases per year”, reassures Eric Dupond-Moretti. An amendment by MP Naïma Moutchou (Horizons) specifies, however, that the recording must be put in place “when the nature and gravity of the facts justify it” And “for a strictly proportionate period” to the goal.
Listening to connected objects: abuses to be feared
Article 3 had raised – and continues to raise – numerous protests and concerns from the senatorial left, which had in particular wanted guaranteed and explicit protection for journalists, doctors, notaries and bailiffs, but the measure was not retained. Note, however, that it protects lawyers, magistrates and parliamentarians. AT In the National Assembly, the deputies tried to strengthen the safeguards with more professions “protected” from these investigative techniques, and this time succeeded in including doctors and journalists. On the other hand, the left failed to include journalists without press cards. LFI, on the other hand, had bailiffs and notaries removed from the “protected” professions by amendment.
The senators opposed to the measure had tried to partially or totally remove provisions deemed “disproportionate”. It is “the door open to widespread surveillance”, had regretted the ecologist Guy Benarroche. On the side of the National Assembly, LFI denounced an “authoritarian drift”. Finally, the Freedoms and Digital Observatory (OLN) denounced a “security escalation” allowing to transform any connected object into potential “snitch”.
The Council of State considers in its opinion on the bill that “this modus operandi has lost its effectiveness in the face of offenders who have learned to protect themselves against it and can present serious risks for investigators”but he himself recognizes that this method “infringes the right to respect for private life insofar as it allows the recording, in any place where the connected device may be, including places of residence, of words and images concerning both the persons targeted by the investigations and third parties”. As for the Council of the Paris Bar Association, it had already expressed reservations in a press release published on May 17. “This new possibility (…) constitutes a particularly serious breach of respect for private life which cannot be justified by the protection of public order.“, he warned. “In addition, the project does not prohibit, by collecting them, listening to conversations in his office, between the lawyer and his client, even if their transcription is prohibited. This is an inadmissible and contrary to professional secrecy and the rights of defence.”
There was also an outcry from many associations for the defense of online freedoms, which strongly oppose this text, starting with Squaring the Net. This evokes a “serious breach of privacy” and fears that, subsequently, this law will not only apply to smartphones and computers, but also to other connected devices such as televisions, baby monitors, connected speakers, watches or even scooters. She also fears that this practice will become widespread in the law and will be used against association, political or trade union activists.