The commission of inquiry on the means used by the State to fight against terrorism since Jan. 7, 2015 released yesterday its 40 proposals. Many of its recommendations are interested (yet) to new technologies.
The law on lukewarm Intelligence, one on monitoring international communications still hot, so that’s a new security push came this time The national assembly. According to the official document, the 30 members of the Parliamentary Committee Buché 5 months, heard nearly 190 people during 125 hours, with a key word: gauge the effectiveness “ actions undertaken in the field of the fight against terrorism “and propose rigor blockages to reduce the risk of new tragedies.
the document is not yet online, but forty proposals were unveiled to make adjustments. Each affecting the organization of law enforcement and rescue others to support victims or intelligence and criminal responses. Regarding new technologies, in particular, several proposals are obvious.
Endangering the lives of others v.2
The fourth place suggests ” create an offense characterized by the diffusion – in any medium – from information likely to cause harm to any person present at the scene of an attack . ” This provision is not out of the hat. She obviously inspired breaches reported by the CSA during the so-called attacks of Charlie Hebdo. Breaches that had also led the former hostages of Hypercacher to drop, a time during a complaint against BFM particular.
This recommendation is also in line with an amendment filed (and removed) by the end of 2015 a batch of PS deputies, led by Sandrine Mazetier on the occasion of the first extension of the state of emergency. The Member for Paris wanted the administrative authority can continue to “ take all measures to ensure the control of the press and publications of all kinds as well as radio broadcasts, film movie tographic and theater .”
Between Mazetier amendment and the proposal of the parliamentary report, however we change context . The first took place in the context of the state of emergency, based on a measure of administrative police and therefore preventive. This time, it is in the common law, after the threshold délinquantiel.
The parliamentary report nevertheless wants punishment for dissemination of information, “ likely to cause injury ” . The actual damage would thus not necessary, only the risk would suffice. The statement also leaves hear that this future offense would be much more easily operable as the endangerment of others, she framed by restrictive conditions. Finally, everyone would be concerned, not just journalists. With such an arrangement, a tweet, a photo, a video too could justify setting in motion of public action, whatever its origin (or journalist Ms. Michu).
A charter on role of social media and networks
the proposal 3 account for its part “ engage in a timely reflection on the media treatment of a terrorist attack in order to define the role and obligations of journalists and social media during a crisis of this kind; the modalities of cooperation between the authorities and the media in the context of this type. This work could lead to the development of a protocol signed between all stakeholders. “
At the sight of these scarce items, we stay here in a typical framework of soft law, the famous logic charter where stakeholders agree to such behavior, such reaction without further stress their moral promise. No revolution here in terms of social networks, after the attacks, have already demonstrated a certain voluntarism including the consideration of reports made by users.
As for journalists, remember that the professional ethics charter already asked to exercise “ greater vigilance before disseminating information from whatever source ” broadcast where “ the notion of emergency in disseminating information or exclusivity must not outweigh the seriousness of the investigation and verification of sources . ” The same document nevertheless requires the journalist not to confuse “ role with that of the police officer or judge .”
Done pungent, the parliamentary report wants to “ set the role and obligations “reporters, remind them not these common sense elements. Again, difficult to determine exactly what is expected MPs …
Review the organization of intelligence services
Many proposals also aim to review the organization of services information: “ Detach permanently gendarmerie officers in the RPS ” (proposition 13), create a “ new management of territorial information, reporting directly to the Minister of the Interior “(proposition 14), set up a” real office fully operational penitentiary intelligence “(proposition 15), etc.
Let us particularly proposal 17 that wants to “ create a common database for all actors in combating terrorism, devoted exclusively to anti-terrorism but complete with appropriate access levels to the needs of services “, so that gleaned information by some can benefit as soon as possible to others. An excellent opportunity to remember the tail of the comet of the law Intelligence, where a final decree is still slow and still to be published. Programmed by Article L. 863-2 of the Code of internal security, he wants to allow all administrative authorities (state, local authorities, public administrative institutions, secu, etc.) to transmit the services of all information “useful information to implement the tasks of the latter .”
investments for the benefit of CCTV and ANPR
Finally, 26 proposal would leverage the investment in CCTV (cameras on public streets) and in favor of “ territorial coverage through gantries fitted with automatic license plate readers (ALPR) .” In short, increasing the capacity of these electronic eyes, particularly riveted on vehicles.
On this subject, the recent law on penal reform has recently increased assumptions where police services, gendarmerie and customs can automatically shoot license plates and vehicle occupants. It is not only the fight against terrorism. Now they can be deployed as well for organized fraud, that undeclared work, bleaching or non-justification of resources. So it is far from the only fight against terrorism.