Sign our petition to stop France from forcing browsers like Mozilla's Firefox to censor websites
foundation.mozilla.org
The French government is considering a law that would require web browsers – like Mozilla's Firefox – to block websites chosen by the government.

The French government is considering a law that would require web browsers – like Mozilla’s Firefox – to block websites chosen by the government.

  • Gordon_Freeman@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    For example, the police cannot enter your house without a warrant

    The patriot act fixed that

    The law is extremely controversial due to its authorization of indefinite detention without trial of immigrants, and due to the permission given to law enforcement to search property and records without a warrant, consent, or knowledge.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      1 year ago

      Here’s an article about it from the ACLU:

      The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

      1. Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
      2. Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
      3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
      4. “Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

      From reading the text of the law myself

      1. This must go through a judge; the requirements are lessened, but it does need to be justified (i.e. they can’t just storm your house); the difference with a regular warrant is that they don’t need to serve the warrant first, they can go ahead and force entry if needed
      2. Again, this requires a warrant, see #1
      3. This is just a broadening if the language (legally changes text from “the purpose” to “a significant purpose”); still problematic, but the requirement to get a warrant stays in force
      4. Yes, this broadens the type of data they can collect, but again, they still need a warrant, but this allows them to collect more than just the data they need for the immediate investigation

      It’s absolutely problematic, and I disagreed with it from the day I heard it introduced, but it doesn’t constutute elimination of the right to privacy that exists with the first amendment. It also only applies to federal authorities, so your local and state authorities (i.e. the ones average citizens are more likely to interact with) are still bound.

      I absolutely hate the Patriot Act and everything related to it (esp. all the NSA nonsense) and think we should repeal anything related to the law and instead pass more strict limitations on governments.

      • Gordon_Freeman@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        This must go through a judge; the requirements are lessened, but it does need to be justified

        “We think this random citizen is a spy or a terrorist”. Justified. Authorities now how to abuse their powers and they do it

      • Gordon_Freeman@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        This must go through a judge; the requirements are lessened, but it does need to be justified

        “We think this random citizen is a spy or a terrorist”. Justified. Authorities now how to abuse their powers and they do it