6 ms·

EU capitals want media law carve-out to spy on reporters

111 points by miohtama 3y ago

miohtama 3y ago
The relevant bit > Paris previously pleaded — successfully — in the Council for a bigger carve-out in the media law allowing EU capitals to snoop on reporters, while European lawmakers in their version of the legislation went with stricter exemptions and stronger safeguards to protect journalists.
- kmlx 3y ago
  https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illegally-extends-blanket-mass-surveillance-of-the-entire-population/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illeg... (18. October 2022) > In a decree made public today, French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne has extended the temporary retention of communications data of all citizens in France for another year. The blanket retention obligation concerns identity data (surname, first name, date and place of birth, postal address(es), e-mail address(es), telephone number(s)) as well as payment information, connection data (IP addresses, port numbers, identification numbers of users and their devices, date, time and duration of each communication, data on supplementary services and their providers) and also the location data of electronic communications of the entire population. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-surveillance-cameras-privacy-security-big-brother-paris-olympics/ https://www.politico.eu/article/france-surveillance-cameras-... (JULY 24, 2023) > Over two centuries, France cobbled together a surveillance apparatus capable of intercepting private communications; keeping traffic and localization data for up to a year; storing people’s fingerprints; and monitoring most of the territory with cameras. > This system, which has faced pushback from digital rights organizations and United Nations experts, will get its spotlight moment at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics. In July next year, France will deploy large-scale, real-time, algorithm-supported video surveillance cameras — a first in Europe. (Not included in the plan: facial recognition.)
  - orwin 3y ago
    It's in the last two decades, not centuries. It really started in 2004, but I think the tipping point was Lyon in 2001 with the first security cameras in public space.
    - JPLeRouzic 3y ago
      As a retired telecom manager, I can assure you that in the 1990' French police were used to make illegal wiretapping. Unofficial instruction was to be blind when police entered a telecom mainframe (répartiteur)
whelp_24 3y ago
The first carve out was already a mile wide, i don't even know what it protects against in this new one.
- dannyw 3y ago
  It’s not protection: its justification.
  - cf1241290841 3y ago
    Was the same with chat control. Suddenly hacking systems was alright as long as a judge looked over it. Its just framing.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> In her draft report, Strugariu suggested that the deployment of spyware should be ordered by a court of law or by a judge That's a fat lot of good, given that the EU seems to be incapable of forcing member states [<cough> Hungary] to implement rule-of-law and judicial independence.
- cf1241290841 3y ago
  Not just Hungary. German prosecutors are not able to issue European arrest warrants due to their lack of independence. The Ministry of Justice can just order them what to prosecute and what to drop. Relevant ruling from the European court of justice https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-05/cp190068en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201... There was talk of changing this after the ruling, but the German government decided it would rather not.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    I disapprove of the European Arrest Warrant. The power of arrest should be subject to local judicial control. A Romainian court should not be able to order the arrest of a British citizen, in Britain, without first convincing a British court that a British law has been violated. If the British citizen violated a Romanian law in Romania, that's not a matter for an international arrest warrant; it's a matter of extradition. But I'm not surprised to learn that German prosecutors are under the control of the Ministry of Justice; bringing a prosecution is normally a prerogative of the government. It's direct control of the judiciary that I find scary. Does Germany have an inquisitorial judicial system like France? In France, AIUI they use "Investigating Magistrates", who are both prosecutor and judge, and who direct police investigations. Acquittal seems improbable in such circumstances. Resistance is useless!
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Part of the point of the EU is to align the legal systems of its member countries such that (1) they trust each others' judiciary, and (2) certain acts are criminal or not criminal across all EU member states. These are both prerequisites to the free circulation of people, and are very important to guarantee that corruption in one country doesn't completely waste EU funds. The European Arrest Warrant is just a technical means. Secondly, there are two main kinds of legal systems with respect to the separation of powers. Ones in which prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and those in which prosecutors are part of the judicial branch. In Germany, they are part of the government. In France, they are part of the judiciary. However, in the aligned EU wide system, warrants are only recognized if they are emitted by an authority in the judiciary branch. So, it's OK for French prosecutors to issue warrants (they are independent from the President), but not for German ones (the Chancellor can order them to emit one, or at least punish them if they don't). And related to the French "Investigating Magistrates", they fulfill the role of prosecutors. They do have some of the powers that judges have in the Common law system, but only some like emitting warrants (which is fine, because they are independent from the government). They do not preside over the criminal trial - there are separate judges who do that. At least that is my understanding.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
[flagged]
- quantum_state 3y ago
  Would second this.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Any government that wants to snoop on journalists is a government that knows it's doing things against the interests of their constituents. France of all places. One problem is, modern governments seem to think that any situation in which they may get voted out counts as a national security risk. Another problem is that anything at all that can change how society operates is a national security risk. Climate change is about as big a national security risk as you could get, ironically it seems to be the only one that gets ignored. Solar power is a national security risk because it can change the power balance between consumers and long standing utilities. Same with electric cars, consumers, and fossil fuel companies. Any change to the balance of power / status quo is literally a threat to national security because society sits on a long established foundation of dependence upon certain utilities, companies, services, etc. Change the power dynamic and the foundation of society changes, which is a threat to national security. The final grand irony is that threats to national security are sometimes a good thing, and indicate the healthy progress of society in integrating new technologies and schools of thought. No national security threats is a symptom of stagnation. The ultimate victory of conservatism, the prize for which is generally losing the next war.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  I don't quite agree that stability or stasis are equivalent to security. Yes, change can coincide with unrest, but there's nothing inherently insecure about incorporating new schools of thought. Otherwise, the US wouldn't have police be run by local governments, separate from and not answering to the national military.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JPLeRouzic 3y ago
  > "anything at all that can change how society operates is a national security risk" In France now two-thirds of staff in police/gendarmerie work in riot control service, and only one-third work in judicial police. There may be good reasons for that, but as a Frenchman, I am unaware that French people in demonstrations are so dangerous. Why do demonstrators need to be countered by armed people trained in urban warfare and equipped with military gear? Indeed there are also real riots with war like scenes, but it's "only" a few hours after the event that riot police arrives. In this matter, firefighters are present during the events and they are real heroes.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
toyg 3y ago
This is still early days, it's just a draft of a negotiating position from 1 of 3 EU powers. As mentioned in TFA: > talks haven't finished [...] Nothing is set in stone. Once the Council has agreed on its mandate, it will have to negotiate with the Parliament — which has yet to reach its position — and the Commission before the new rules can enter into force. (Even the "enter into force" is debatable, should really read "be approved" - enforcement might come at later date, or even never.) And yes, the European Council sucks. It's full of these directly elected members of national parliaments, always so keen to pander to the electorate.
- morsch 3y ago
  The European Council essentially consists of the heads of state of the EU governments, which may or may not be members of their respective national parliament. I guess it's a minor nitpick. But it directly represents the national executive and not the legislative bodies.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Yeah, my main point is that saying "the EU" when talking about the Council can be disingenuous - technically it's more like "national governments of member countries" rather than the institution. Both Commission and Parliament are technically closer to expressing the will of "the EU" as a body than the Council.
    - somewhereoutth 3y ago
      Though sovereignty and final power flows from the Council. Compare with the US system where sovereignty comes from the US as a whole and is delegated down to the States.
      - toyg 3y ago
        > Though sovereignty and final power flows from the Council. Eeehh... This is an open point of law, technically. Per Maastricht treaty, the European Parliament has co-decision powers, and its consistent electoral system arguably makes it more directly representative of European people than national governments. Parliament "stared down" the Council on occasions. The Council/Commission/Parliament setup is really not the finished article, I expect things will change again before the end of the century.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
If you can use spyware against the common man then you can absolutely use it against a journalist. They aren't a special caste of people. Live like everyone else has to for a while.

111 points by miohtama 3y ago

The relevant bit > Paris previously pleaded — successfully — in the Council for a bigger carve-out in the media law allowing EU capitals to snoop on reporters, while European lawmakers in their version of the legislation went with stricter exemptions and stronger safeguards to protect journalists.

kmlx 3y ago
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illegally-extends-blanket-mass-surveillance-of-the-entire-population/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illeg... (18. October 2022) > In a decree made public today, French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne has extended the temporary retention of communications data of all citizens in France for another year. The blanket retention obligation concerns identity data (surname, first name, date and place of birth, postal address(es), e-mail address(es), telephone number(s)) as well as payment information, connection data (IP addresses, port numbers, identification numbers of users and their devices, date, time and duration of each communication, data on supplementary services and their providers) and also the location data of electronic communications of the entire population. https://www.politico.eu/article/france-surveillance-cameras-privacy-security-big-brother-paris-olympics/ https://www.politico.eu/article/france-surveillance-cameras-... (JULY 24, 2023) > Over two centuries, France cobbled together a surveillance apparatus capable of intercepting private communications; keeping traffic and localization data for up to a year; storing people’s fingerprints; and monitoring most of the territory with cameras. > This system, which has faced pushback from digital rights organizations and United Nations experts, will get its spotlight moment at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics. In July next year, France will deploy large-scale, real-time, algorithm-supported video surveillance cameras — a first in Europe. (Not included in the plan: facial recognition.)
- orwin 3y ago
  It's in the last two decades, not centuries. It really started in 2004, but I think the tipping point was Lyon in 2001 with the first security cameras in public space.
  - JPLeRouzic 3y ago
    As a retired telecom manager, I can assure you that in the 1990' French police were used to make illegal wiretapping. Unofficial instruction was to be blind when police entered a telecom mainframe (répartiteur)

whelp_24 3y ago

The first carve out was already a mile wide, i don't even know what it protects against in this new one.

dannyw 3y ago
It’s not protection: its justification.
- cf1241290841 3y ago
  Was the same with chat control. Suddenly hacking systems was alright as long as a judge looked over it. Its just framing.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> In her draft report, Strugariu suggested that the deployment of spyware should be ordered by a court of law or by a judge That's a fat lot of good, given that the EU seems to be incapable of forcing member states [<cough> Hungary] to implement rule-of-law and judicial independence.

cf1241290841 3y ago
Not just Hungary. German prosecutors are not able to issue European arrest warrants due to their lack of independence. The Ministry of Justice can just order them what to prosecute and what to drop. Relevant ruling from the European court of justice https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-05/cp190068en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201... There was talk of changing this after the ruling, but the German government decided it would rather not.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  I disapprove of the European Arrest Warrant. The power of arrest should be subject to local judicial control. A Romainian court should not be able to order the arrest of a British citizen, in Britain, without first convincing a British court that a British law has been violated. If the British citizen violated a Romanian law in Romania, that's not a matter for an international arrest warrant; it's a matter of extradition. But I'm not surprised to learn that German prosecutors are under the control of the Ministry of Justice; bringing a prosecution is normally a prerogative of the government. It's direct control of the judiciary that I find scary. Does Germany have an inquisitorial judicial system like France? In France, AIUI they use "Investigating Magistrates", who are both prosecutor and judge, and who direct police investigations. Acquittal seems improbable in such circumstances. Resistance is useless!
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Part of the point of the EU is to align the legal systems of its member countries such that (1) they trust each others' judiciary, and (2) certain acts are criminal or not criminal across all EU member states. These are both prerequisites to the free circulation of people, and are very important to guarantee that corruption in one country doesn't completely waste EU funds. The European Arrest Warrant is just a technical means. Secondly, there are two main kinds of legal systems with respect to the separation of powers. Ones in which prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and those in which prosecutors are part of the judicial branch. In Germany, they are part of the government. In France, they are part of the judiciary. However, in the aligned EU wide system, warrants are only recognized if they are emitted by an authority in the judiciary branch. So, it's OK for French prosecutors to issue warrants (they are independent from the President), but not for German ones (the Chancellor can order them to emit one, or at least punish them if they don't). And related to the French "Investigating Magistrates", they fulfill the role of prosecutors. They do have some of the powers that judges have in the Common law system, but only some like emitting warrants (which is fine, because they are independent from the government). They do not preside over the criminal trial - there are separate judges who do that. At least that is my understanding.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

[flagged]

quantum_state 3y ago
Would second this.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

Any government that wants to snoop on journalists is a government that knows it's doing things against the interests of their constituents. France of all places. One problem is, modern governments seem to think that any situation in which they may get voted out counts as a national security risk. Another problem is that anything at all that can change how society operates is a national security risk. Climate change is about as big a national security risk as you could get, ironically it seems to be the only one that gets ignored. Solar power is a national security risk because it can change the power balance between consumers and long standing utilities. Same with electric cars, consumers, and fossil fuel companies. Any change to the balance of power / status quo is literally a threat to national security because society sits on a long established foundation of dependence upon certain utilities, companies, services, etc. Change the power dynamic and the foundation of society changes, which is a threat to national security. The final grand irony is that threats to national security are sometimes a good thing, and indicate the healthy progress of society in integrating new technologies and schools of thought. No national security threats is a symptom of stagnation. The ultimate victory of conservatism, the prize for which is generally losing the next war.

zdragnar 3y ago
I don't quite agree that stability or stasis are equivalent to security. Yes, change can coincide with unrest, but there's nothing inherently insecure about incorporating new schools of thought. Otherwise, the US wouldn't have police be run by local governments, separate from and not answering to the national military.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JPLeRouzic 3y ago
> "anything at all that can change how society operates is a national security risk" In France now two-thirds of staff in police/gendarmerie work in riot control service, and only one-third work in judicial police. There may be good reasons for that, but as a Frenchman, I am unaware that French people in demonstrations are so dangerous. Why do demonstrators need to be countered by armed people trained in urban warfare and equipped with military gear? Indeed there are also real riots with war like scenes, but it's "only" a few hours after the event that riot police arrives. In this matter, firefighters are present during the events and they are real heroes.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

toyg 3y ago

This is still early days, it's just a draft of a negotiating position from 1 of 3 EU powers. As mentioned in TFA: > talks haven't finished [...] Nothing is set in stone. Once the Council has agreed on its mandate, it will have to negotiate with the Parliament — which has yet to reach its position — and the Commission before the new rules can enter into force. (Even the "enter into force" is debatable, should really read "be approved" - enforcement might come at later date, or even never.) And yes, the European Council sucks. It's full of these directly elected members of national parliaments, always so keen to pander to the electorate.

morsch 3y ago
The European Council essentially consists of the heads of state of the EU governments, which may or may not be members of their respective national parliament. I guess it's a minor nitpick. But it directly represents the national executive and not the legislative bodies.
- toyg 3y ago
  Yeah, my main point is that saying "the EU" when talking about the Council can be disingenuous - technically it's more like "national governments of member countries" rather than the institution. Both Commission and Parliament are technically closer to expressing the will of "the EU" as a body than the Council.
  - somewhereoutth 3y ago
    Though sovereignty and final power flows from the Council. Compare with the US system where sovereignty comes from the US as a whole and is delegated down to the States.
    - toyg 3y ago
      > Though sovereignty and final power flows from the Council. Eeehh... This is an open point of law, technically. Per Maastricht treaty, the European Parliament has co-decision powers, and its consistent electoral system arguably makes it more directly representative of European people than national governments. Parliament "stared down" the Council on occasions. The Council/Commission/Parliament setup is really not the finished article, I expect things will change again before the end of the century.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago

If you can use spyware against the common man then you can absolutely use it against a journalist. They aren't a special caste of people. Live like everyone else has to for a while.