Does anyone know how this even works? Is the technology for this already in place?

  •  bbbhltz   ( @bbbhltz@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2811 months ago

    Commented on this article in another thread

    https://beehaw.org/comment/586170

    Looks like there are caveats to this law:

    You would need to be a suspect in a crime that has a punishment of 5 or more years in prison in order for the phone to be geolocated.

    For video/audio you need to fall under the definition of organised crime or terrorism.

    •  MajesticFlame   ( @MajesticFlame@lemmy.one ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Sure, the issue is that, with no transparency, cops will use it if they are courios what they friends are doing. This is already known to happen in the US, where cops used it to stalk their SOs or even in extreme cases women they were starting to date.

      If they already have the technology in their hands, there is no way to stop them.

        •  MajesticFlame   ( @MajesticFlame@lemmy.one ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They should also need it in the US. The issue is, that if the tool is in the hands of the cops, there is no way to check who they spied on (and therefore if they had warrant).

          At least if it was executed by a comercial entity, they can check the warrants and be liable if they do it without one. But that is very likely not how it will be implemented. The cops will get the tools to do with as they please.

          As an example, one state in the US (forgot which one) put in a law that requires the police to submit every data search warrant into a public database so that they could be audited by the public. After they compared the contents of the database to number of requests in companies transparency reports, it turned out there were over 5 times as many requests in the state then what was reported in the database, despite reporting being required by law.

          •  bbbhltz   ( @bbbhltz@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            I really hope the power isn’t abused. The second it is it will lead to more riots and even though I have in no way been directly affected where I live, it is a pain to get messages from friends abroad asking “Why is France on fire again?”

              •  bbbhltz   ( @bbbhltz@beehaw.org ) 
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                I’ve lived here since 2006 and I haven’t met a single person that participated in any of the riots, which are offshoots of sanctioned strikes and do not represent France as a whole. I’ve had some students that strike for the environment or maybe do walkouts.

                The closest I came to one was a strike about police violence and I happened to be in a café and had to evacuate because of year gas. In that instance, it turned out the person they were striking for lied.

                So, I can’t say why they want to destroy stuff.

    • Those caveats are just to get the laws passes.

      Online piracy already carries punishment up to 3 years. All it takes them is make a law that technically holds 5 years but gets pardoned in practice.

      Labeling someone a terrorist can be as simple as “collective undertaking with the aim of seriously disturbing public order through intimidation” aka protesting…