5 ms·

As others have mentioned, context matters a lot. The arrested group came back from Syria (where they fought alongside YPG against ISIS) radicalised, and were mo

by sofixa 3y ago

As others have mentioned, context matters a lot. The arrested group came back from Syria (where they fought alongside YPG against ISIS) radicalised, and were monitored ever since then. Their alleged crime isn't using Signal, it's just that a French anti-terrorism law allows to be arrested for "organisation with the intent to commit terrorist acts", which the DGSI(internal intelligence services) claims a radicalised group of people calling for a revolution, using encrypted communications, having a bunch of hunting weapons and ammunition, and materials for explosives is. A big stretch on the surface, but they were monitoring them for years, so who the hell knows what else they have. The real problem is the unlawful detention of one of the men, for which a court finally intervened and he has been freed under surveillance.

franciscop 3y ago
It should be very clear IMHO; they have nothing, if they caught the group with "a bunch of hunting weapons and ammunition" then they can arrest them for that and that'd be a lot more serious ground for the argument of "intent to commit terrorist acts". Since it seems they don't have anything, they are criminalizing normal tools and dev tools because your average reader/citizen doesn't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker, let alone the right of privacy vs conspiring. The only nice thing IMHO is that everyone uses Whatsapp and no one considers it "criminal", so by bundling Signal etc together with Whatsapp they are making themselves look like they are exaggerating for the average person.
- martin8412 3y ago
  Depending on when it occurred, traveling into Syria could be a crime in itself. France and other EU countries banned the travel to Syria unless you were associated with a limited number of groups(humanitarian, journalism, diplomatic mission etc.). Joining any warring party was explicitly prohibited.
- willis936 3y ago
  At least in the US it is illegal to stockpile materials for making explosives without explicit licensing.
csomar 3y ago
> As others have mentioned, context matters a lot. No, it does not. While this group is indeed suspicious, detaining them without a proof (and using whatsapp as your proof) opens a serious precedent. Now anyone can be detain for that. And it'll be used for serious suspicious cases later but also will be used against someone like you because someone in the police didn't like how you walk.
- 627467 3y ago
  How does "police didn't like how you walk" is similar to "demonstrably returned radicalized from a ongoing warzone"?
  - pjerem 3y ago
    Because they have not been arrested officially because they returned from a war zone (it’s suspicious but not illegal) but because they used cryptography.
- lloeki 3y ago
  > opens a serious precedent Of note for US readers, France legal system is not a jurisprudential system as in the US. That is, a judge's ruling does not become law - i.e must be followed as law by another judge -, only parliament can make law. The only instance having a form of jurisprudence power is Cour de Cassation, but that's only indirect: being the ultimate instance of recourse CCass rulings for similar cases have high chances of having similar outcomes. They may (or may not) influence other court rulings but a) they are not law and b) reaching to CCass is not guaranteed, so other courts judges are completely free to rule differently (as long as they abide by law) That said, holistically these precedents matter as they may give broad strokes on mindset trends from the powers at play.
  - junon 3y ago
    That's interesting. So even if the judge knows their ruling could be the worst of several options, they're boxed into doing so because it's the law?
lannisterstark 3y ago
>context matters a lot Not in this current context. You can't detain someone willy nilly for 'intentions' without such intentions being explicitly stated as proof in letters, emails, messages, threats etc. This is authoritarian pandering 101.
- pif 3y ago
  > This is authoritarian pandering 101. No, this is matter-of-fact anti-terrorism.
  - pnt12 3y ago
    Anti-terrorism and authoritarianism go hand in hand, that's been clear since 9/11. The problem is that government us terrorism scaremongering to justify erasing citizens rights. It's completely valid to be anti-terrorist and prefer alternative choices to fight it. For example, in my country, both polices and tribunals are severely under provisioned. I'd start with imroofijg those budgets before passing surveillance laws.
    - sofixa 3y ago
      > It's completely valid to be anti-terrorist and prefer alternative choices to fight it. What alternative choices? France suffered multiple highly deadly attacks on it's soil, including two with 100+ graphic and violent dead. What alternative choices are there to prevent them outside of mass surveillance, infiltrating potentially radicalising religious institutions and shutting them down, arresting members of outwardly radical groups stockpiling weapons and materials for explosives (all things the French government is doing).
      - lannisterstark 3y ago
        I see two comments in and we're already making excuses for authoritarianism. Never have I before seen people go "But mass surveillance, civil right violating arrests are good actually!" "We gotta auth because there are no alternatives" has been used time and again in history to commit atrocities. --- Like it or not, People don't just go around committing terrorist attacks everyday. I, for example, and many people I know, have plenty of equipment to do so if I wanted to (multiple firearms, potential explosives etc), but why would I?
hkt 3y ago
> freed under surveillance One of many problems with western societies at the moment is the idea that we can be free while under surveillance.
nestorD 3y ago
> they were monitoring them for years, so who the hell knows what else they have Given the weakness of the elements assembled, why would the DGSI decide to withhold any decisive proof from the eyes of the justice system?

by sofixa 3y ago

franciscop 3y ago

It should be very clear IMHO; they have nothing, if they caught the group with "a bunch of hunting weapons and ammunition" then they can arrest them for that and that'd be a lot more serious ground for the argument of "intent to commit terrorist acts". Since it seems they don't have anything, they are criminalizing normal tools and dev tools because your average reader/citizen doesn't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker, let alone the right of privacy vs conspiring. The only nice thing IMHO is that everyone uses Whatsapp and no one considers it "criminal", so by bundling Signal etc together with Whatsapp they are making themselves look like they are exaggerating for the average person.

martin8412 3y ago
Depending on when it occurred, traveling into Syria could be a crime in itself. France and other EU countries banned the travel to Syria unless you were associated with a limited number of groups(humanitarian, journalism, diplomatic mission etc.). Joining any warring party was explicitly prohibited.
willis936 3y ago
At least in the US it is illegal to stockpile materials for making explosives without explicit licensing.

csomar 3y ago

> As others have mentioned, context matters a lot. No, it does not. While this group is indeed suspicious, detaining them without a proof (and using whatsapp as your proof) opens a serious precedent. Now anyone can be detain for that. And it'll be used for serious suspicious cases later but also will be used against someone like you because someone in the police didn't like how you walk.

627467 3y ago
How does "police didn't like how you walk" is similar to "demonstrably returned radicalized from a ongoing warzone"?
- pjerem 3y ago
  Because they have not been arrested officially because they returned from a war zone (it’s suspicious but not illegal) but because they used cryptography.
lloeki 3y ago
> opens a serious precedent Of note for US readers, France legal system is not a jurisprudential system as in the US. That is, a judge's ruling does not become law - i.e must be followed as law by another judge -, only parliament can make law. The only instance having a form of jurisprudence power is Cour de Cassation, but that's only indirect: being the ultimate instance of recourse CCass rulings for similar cases have high chances of having similar outcomes. They may (or may not) influence other court rulings but a) they are not law and b) reaching to CCass is not guaranteed, so other courts judges are completely free to rule differently (as long as they abide by law) That said, holistically these precedents matter as they may give broad strokes on mindset trends from the powers at play.
- junon 3y ago
  That's interesting. So even if the judge knows their ruling could be the worst of several options, they're boxed into doing so because it's the law?

lannisterstark 3y ago

>context matters a lot Not in this current context. You can't detain someone willy nilly for 'intentions' without such intentions being explicitly stated as proof in letters, emails, messages, threats etc. This is authoritarian pandering 101.

pif 3y ago
> This is authoritarian pandering 101. No, this is matter-of-fact anti-terrorism.
- pnt12 3y ago
  Anti-terrorism and authoritarianism go hand in hand, that's been clear since 9/11. The problem is that government us terrorism scaremongering to justify erasing citizens rights. It's completely valid to be anti-terrorist and prefer alternative choices to fight it. For example, in my country, both polices and tribunals are severely under provisioned. I'd start with imroofijg those budgets before passing surveillance laws.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > It's completely valid to be anti-terrorist and prefer alternative choices to fight it. What alternative choices? France suffered multiple highly deadly attacks on it's soil, including two with 100+ graphic and violent dead. What alternative choices are there to prevent them outside of mass surveillance, infiltrating potentially radicalising religious institutions and shutting them down, arresting members of outwardly radical groups stockpiling weapons and materials for explosives (all things the French government is doing).
    - lannisterstark 3y ago
      I see two comments in and we're already making excuses for authoritarianism. Never have I before seen people go "But mass surveillance, civil right violating arrests are good actually!" "We gotta auth because there are no alternatives" has been used time and again in history to commit atrocities. --- Like it or not, People don't just go around committing terrorist attacks everyday. I, for example, and many people I know, have plenty of equipment to do so if I wanted to (multiple firearms, potential explosives etc), but why would I?

hkt 3y ago

> freed under surveillance One of many problems with western societies at the moment is the idea that we can be free while under surveillance.

nestorD 3y ago

> they were monitoring them for years, so who the hell knows what else they have Given the weakness of the elements assembled, why would the DGSI decide to withhold any decisive proof from the eyes of the justice system?