3 ms·

> But lawmakers agreed to the bill late Wednesday as Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insisted the bill would affect only “dozens of cases a year.” Technic

> But lawmakers agreed to the bill late Wednesday as Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insisted the bill would affect only “dozens of cases a year.” Technically he is not lying or naive, because any number, including large numbers like 66 million, can be expressed in units of dozens.

blamazon 3y ago
66 million is 5.5 million dozens for anyone else wondering. Or, 5,076,923.08 baker's dozens.
dathinab 3y ago
it most likely really will only be a small number of cases BUT that doesn't matter it being abused against just one or two times in very important contexts (political, human right activists, etc.) can already be a major negative impact for laws like that the "it's just a few" argument was always worthless even if true
- freedomben 3y ago
  Exactly. The total number of cases doesn't really matter that much, it's the capability and willingness.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  I dunno, I think the number will increase above dozens. They certainly won't start out doing dozens a year, then pare it down to one or two, and eventually realize the don't even really need it. More likely, the number of uses per year will creep up, until eventually it's not as controversial as it used to be, at which point it'll jump dramatically. As a comparison, in the U.S., no-knock warrants were controversial when they were first implemented, and they were stated as being only for very special circumstances—ya know, terrorists and such—and now they happen about 70,000 times a year, mostly for dangerous activities like marijuana possession or distribution. The ratchet only goes one way, which is why it's dangerous to grant the premise of "we'll only use this in exigent circumstances, we pinky swear".
  - achenet 3y ago
    Eh... French cops are relatively lazy. I've seen people literally smoking joints in front of the police station. Listening in on someone to find evidence of them doing something illegal is actual work, the odds of them doing it to everyone are rather low, I think they'd rather go watch a football game or something.
dathinab 3y ago
Linguistically dozens of cases is vague less then 200 and definitively less then 1000, because then it would be hundreds of cases. Through there is no legal requirement for the statement to be true in any form or way. Even if they would have explicitly said less then 50 cases, it's not a constraint in the law, so it's meaningless. Through see my other comment for why even if that statement is fully true in a linguistic sense it still is very bad.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  >"[Though] there is no legal requirement for the statement to be true [...]" This is a major flaw in Western democracies. A person acting for the government, making a statement that the public would see as official, should be bound by law to tell the truth; or at least not lie nor commit deception. People like UK ex-PM Johnson are effectively committing treasonous fraud, by lying to the public, and getting off scot-free.
  - salawat 3y ago
    ...Enforcement would require a DA to levy criminal charges against the person in question... Do you see the problem here?
realusername 3y ago
I doubt he's lying, those zero days exploits are very expensive and it's not like you want to burn them for investigating some small theft
seszett 3y ago
> dozens I find it funny that "dizaines" (tens) got translated to "dozens" (which would be "douzaines", but is rarely used except for eggs).
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  To be fair, in English, the word "tens" is much more rare than "dozens." In this context they're largely interchangeable, but "tens" is much more clunky and probably a worse translation.
saiya-jin 3y ago
Yeah dozens my ass, another round of massive anti-government protests or Paris streets on fire, or some terrorist attack and they will not be very selective about this because "security". We know how messed up people with such powers are, it doesn't matter which country, for them 1984 is not some bad utopia but just first step in such direction

blamazon 3y ago

66 million is 5.5 million dozens for anyone else wondering. Or, 5,076,923.08 baker's dozens.

dathinab 3y ago

it most likely really will only be a small number of cases BUT that doesn't matter it being abused against just one or two times in very important contexts (political, human right activists, etc.) can already be a major negative impact for laws like that the "it's just a few" argument was always worthless even if true

freedomben 3y ago
Exactly. The total number of cases doesn't really matter that much, it's the capability and willingness.
karaterobot 3y ago
I dunno, I think the number will increase above dozens. They certainly won't start out doing dozens a year, then pare it down to one or two, and eventually realize the don't even really need it. More likely, the number of uses per year will creep up, until eventually it's not as controversial as it used to be, at which point it'll jump dramatically. As a comparison, in the U.S., no-knock warrants were controversial when they were first implemented, and they were stated as being only for very special circumstances—ya know, terrorists and such—and now they happen about 70,000 times a year, mostly for dangerous activities like marijuana possession or distribution. The ratchet only goes one way, which is why it's dangerous to grant the premise of "we'll only use this in exigent circumstances, we pinky swear".
- achenet 3y ago
  Eh... French cops are relatively lazy. I've seen people literally smoking joints in front of the police station. Listening in on someone to find evidence of them doing something illegal is actual work, the odds of them doing it to everyone are rather low, I think they'd rather go watch a football game or something.

dathinab 3y ago

Linguistically dozens of cases is vague less then 200 and definitively less then 1000, because then it would be hundreds of cases. Through there is no legal requirement for the statement to be true in any form or way. Even if they would have explicitly said less then 50 cases, it's not a constraint in the law, so it's meaningless. Through see my other comment for why even if that statement is fully true in a linguistic sense it still is very bad.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>"[Though] there is no legal requirement for the statement to be true [...]" This is a major flaw in Western democracies. A person acting for the government, making a statement that the public would see as official, should be bound by law to tell the truth; or at least not lie nor commit deception. People like UK ex-PM Johnson are effectively committing treasonous fraud, by lying to the public, and getting off scot-free.
- salawat 3y ago
  ...Enforcement would require a DA to levy criminal charges against the person in question... Do you see the problem here?

realusername 3y ago

I doubt he's lying, those zero days exploits are very expensive and it's not like you want to burn them for investigating some small theft

seszett 3y ago

> dozens I find it funny that "dizaines" (tens) got translated to "dozens" (which would be "douzaines", but is rarely used except for eggs).

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
To be fair, in English, the word "tens" is much more rare than "dozens." In this context they're largely interchangeable, but "tens" is much more clunky and probably a worse translation.

saiya-jin 3y ago

Yeah dozens my ass, another round of massive anti-government protests or Paris streets on fire, or some terrorist attack and they will not be very selective about this because "security". We know how messed up people with such powers are, it doesn't matter which country, for them 1984 is not some bad utopia but just first step in such direction