The National Assembly approved article 3 of the bill carried by Eric Dupond-Moretti, thanks to the vote of the elected representatives of the majority, the Republicans and the National Rally.
Simple new technological tool or dangerous draconian measure? The deputies approved, on Wednesday July 5, article 3 of the bill of orientation and programming of the Ministry of Justice, which has more than 150 paragraphs, thus modifying many points of the criminal procedure. One provision has been particularly debated: the possibility of remotely activating mobile phones, computers and other connected objects, to listen to and film people targeted in certain investigations without their knowledge. In all, 80 deputies from the majority, the Republicans and the National Rally voted in favor and 24 elected from the Nupes against. The president of the Liot group, Bertrand Pancher, also opposed this measure. But what exactly does this text provide? What criticisms are there against it? Franceinfo takes stock.
Remote activation of connected objects
What the text says. The article allows the remote activation of mobile phones, computers and other connected objects in two distinct cases. The first authorizes geolocation to follow in real time the movements of people under investigation for a crime or misdemeanor punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment.. The second concerns persons targeted in cases of terrorism, delinquency and organized crime, and allows the remote capture of sounds and images from mobile phones, computers and other connected objects.
These procedures are supervised. The activation of a telephone or a connected object must be subject to the decision of a judge and be limited in time, according to the text published on the site of the National Assembly. Indeed, the capturing of images and sounds will be reserved for the most “more serious” and authorized for 15 days, renewable once by the liberty and detention judge, and two months, renewable by an investigating judge, up to a maximum of six months. In addition, the text specifies that this activation cannot concern electronic devices used by a deputy, a senator, a magistrate, a lawyer, a journalist or a doctor.
Why it is criticized. The bill is not to the taste of left-wing deputies, wind up against these provisions “invasion of privacy”as well as several lawyers and associations. “This bill is harmful”denounced the rebellious MP Ersilia Soudais, supported by her colleague Antoine Léaument. “1984 is precisely the world you are giving us”he criticized, reading an extract from George Orwell’s book in the Hemicycle, as reported by LCP. “The guarantees governing these measures are not satisfactory”for its part reacted the socialist deputy, Cécile Untermaier on Twitter.
The lawyers also denounce an attack on freedoms. Thus, the National Bar Council has requested the pure and simple withdrawal of the text from the Keeper of the Seals, according to a press release. The profession fears a “possible trivialization of attacks on individual freedoms”castigating “continuous monitoring techniques”such as to return “in question the right to privacy”. For its part, the Council of State issued an opinion on the bill, in the spring of 2023, in which it underlines that “this modus operandi has lost its effectiveness in the face of offenders who have learned to protect themselves against it”.
To justify the need for these recordings, the Keeper of the Seals compares them to the “old technique” of microphones or cameras placed in suspects’ homes and stresses that it concerns only “dozens of cases per year”. He also argues that the remote triggering of connected devices is already used by “intelligence services”, without the authorization of a judge being necessary. Finally, regarding geolocation, it “Already exists” with beacons and the demarcation of telephones, for crimes and misdemeanors punishable by at least three years of imprisonment, justifies the minister.
The possible use of telecommunications
What the text says. Two paragraphs are devoted to the use of telecommunications, more particularly during police custody. The first provides for the possibility of using a teleconsultation for a medical examination of an adult, during an extension of police custody. And this, “If the nature of the examination allows it, under conditions guaranteeing the quality, confidentiality and security of exchanges”. However, the doctor may request a physical examination, if deemed necessary. In the event that the person in police custody does not speak French, the text also allows interpreters to intervene remotely. And this, “through means of telecommunication under conditions guaranteeing the quality, confidentiality and security of exchanges, in particular with his lawyer”clarifies the text.
Why it is criticized. This use of telecommunications “worry” in particular the Council of the Bar Association, which “deplores the use of telecommunications means for the fundamental interventions of the interpreter and the doctor, in particular in police custody”. A concern shared by the Defender of Rights. In a notice published in early June (PDF)Claire Hédon believes that “the first medical examination at a minimum, even if it occurs during the extension of police custody, must allow the person to be put in the presence of a doctor”. As for the remote intervention of an interpreter, she points to the “lack of material means and therefore the repercussions of the use of degraded means of telecommunication on communication between the interpreter and the person concerned”.
Night searches for common law crimes
What the text says. In this vast article 3, the text also provides for the extension of the use of night searches, hitherto reserved for a very limited field of criminality, for common law crimes. And this, in order to “allow the preservation of evidence and avoid a new passage to the act”justifies the text.
Why it is criticized. It is a provision that aims to make “to push back the principle of the inviolability of the home”denounced the rebellious deputy Andrée Taurinya during the debates. An opinion supported by the ecologist deputy Jérémie Iordanoff, who believes that this text “gives permission to particularly intrusive investigative techniques by extending them to common crimes”.
In addition to policies,This measure is considered, “in the same way as article 3 of the bill”like a “burial of defense rights”, denounces the National Bar Council. For its part, the Council of the Paris Bar Association considers in a press release (PDF) that this type of search is extended “under conditions such that the principle of their prohibition becomes non-existent”.