France's General
Directorate for External Security and America's
National Security Agency:
After all the debating, not so different.
French Big Brother is Watching You! (Le Monde, France)
"It isn't only the U.S. government that has developed a gigantic
apparatus to spy on all of its citizens and beyond. Paris has done the same.
... In America, the system comes with a semblance of legislative and judicial
scrutiny. That is nothing like France. ... By nature, any government aspires to
control. This demands countervailing powers, parliaments and judiciaries, to hold
in respect the immense power over our lives amassed by government. In France,
judging by the silence that has greeted our investigation, that doesn't sit
well."
In
a 1997 film, great German filmmaker WimWenders describes global electronic police surveillance.
The authorities have promised citizens The End of Violence
- which is the title of the film.
With
a closely-knit network of cameras and microphones, the inhabitants of Los
Angeles are under constant electronic surveillance. Even before the commission of
a crime, police can intervene to prevent it. Very soon, the venture turns into
a nightmare: the end of violence is the end of privacy; and the end of privacy
is the beginning of the end of democracy.
Sixteen
years later, here we are, and in real life, not the movies. We are potentially
in a world where the state can know everything about us - or almost. Welcome to
digital alchemy!
That's
what we have learned from the revelations made by American whistleblower Edward
Snowden, and the investigative report
published by Le Monde in its July
5 edition.
It
isn't only the U.S. government that has developed a gigantic apparatus to spy on
all of its citizens and beyond. Paris has done the same. The special services -
the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE) - systematically collect the electromagnetic
signals emitted by computers and phones in France, as well as the data flow
between the French and foreigners: e-mail and telephone records, and access to data
on Facebook, Twitter, and other Web sites ...
Everything is saved.
Obviously, this is not a question of reading
or listening to billions of communications. Rather, it is a matter of storing
the identities of the caller and the called, and then where necessary, making a
proper interception. However, without overstating it, the digital universe, which
one cannot escape as it is part of our day-to-day lives, provides the state, if
it is so disposed, with a "profile" of our private and professional lives.
In the United States, the system
comes with a semblance of legislative and judicial scrutiny. That is nothing
like France, it seems, where the seven intelligence services may have access to
the DGSE's stored metadata.
There are good reasons for the state
to adopt a similar mechanism. It must adapt to the changing demands of battling
terrorism and organized crime. This is in keeping with one of its central
missions: protecting the security of citizens. In this sense, bin Laden nourished
Big Brother - and al-Qaeda has dealt a blow to democracy.
While the policy may a priori claim popular consent, the
trend is nevertheless a dangerous one. It is not giving into anti-state
paranoia to note that by the grace of the digital era, in our democracies, the
executive has a totalitarian instrument: control over connections.
By nature, any government aspires to
control. It is up to the legislature and judiciary to adjust the machinery put
in place by the executive in the name of security. This demands countervailing powers,
parliaments and judiciaries, to hold in respect the immense power over our
lives amassed by government.
In France, judging by the silence that
has greeted our investigation, that doesn't sit well.
