Will ISPs need to monitor metadata?
This Thursday is presented in the Council of Ministers a bill on “intelligence”. The newspaper The world, who was able to consult a version of the document, reports that the text provides for the establishment of several devices aimed at strengthening the surveillance of Internet users in order to fight against terrorism, and identify any suspicious projects and profiles.
The daily reports in particular that, to anticipate the risk of attacks, Internet service providers could monitor Internet users’ metadata in order to “detect, by automatic processing, a suspicious succession of connection data “. A point of friction would relate in particular to the anonymization of data or not, the government believing that this is guaranteed, unlike the National Commission for Information Technology and Freedoms which would be much more critical.
Also, the text plans to tackle the encryption of electronic communications at a time when many services offering encrypted e-mail solutions are emerging – Mailden in France, ProtonMail in Switzerland which has raised more than $ 500,000 on Kickstarter… – and where Web giants are strengthening their systems. Yahoo! recently announced that it would offer end-to-end encryption.
The will of the French government is not isolated. British Prime Minister David Cameron had announced wanting to fight against encryption techniques : “Are we going to allow a medium of communication where it’s just not possible to do this?” (read communications or listen to a call, editor’s note) My answer to this question is: no, you shouldn’t ”.
Update March 19, 2015 at 3:22 p.m .:
Reaction of the National Digital Council by means of a press release : ” The Prime Minister presented a draft law relating to intelligence to the Council of Ministers. The National Digital Council noted progress there: in addition to the fact that intelligence will have a general framework and increased control, the definition of this framework will be the subject of a real adversarial debate, in Parliament and in the society. However, the Board deplores the plan to significantly extend the scope of supervision, without this extension being accompanied by sufficient guarantees in terms of freedoms. “. (…)
” The Council is primarily concerned about a significant extension of the perimeter of surveillance (… and), is concerned about the introduction of new intelligence techniques, some of which may limit to a form of mass surveillance. (…) It is regrettable that the bill does not reaffirm a general principle of subsidiarity, which reserves infringements of individual freedoms only for cases where it proves impossible to proceed otherwise. (…) In addition, particular vigilance must be paid to the methods of controlling intelligence. In this regard, the Council welcomes the establishment of a Commission for the Control of Intelligence Techniques (CNCTR) with extended powers, as well as the creation of a specialized court within the Council of State. “