Forbidden To Criticize Big Brother

Published in Le Temps
(Switzerland) on 21 November 2015
by Pierre-Alexande Sallier (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Megan Cohen. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
One week after the terrorist attacks claimed 130 lives in the heart of Paris, criticism of monitoring email and online Internet messages fell silent. Criticism had been considered improper. Dangerous. Even within leftist parties in Switzerland, who fought against a legislative arsenal of universal communication surveillance approved by the parliament on Sept. 25.

Too many emotions. Too many terrible images. Too many deaths for nothing. Example? The calls this week in France to expose the six representatives who were opposed to the exceptional measures taken in the three-month state of emergency. Example? The CIA director’s attacks on Edward Snowden — the man who denounced the United States when the National Security Agency deviated from its usual practices to spy on citizens — suggesting that Snowden was to blame for faulty surveillance of extremists.

Paradoxically, the only remaining criticism of this wholesale surveillance is that from cybersecurity specialists. However, this denunciation of Big Brother is far more than mere criticism by cybersecurity experts.

No, the problem with recognizing terrorist attacks was not missing information, but the failure to use information that the authorities already had. Yes, “The Islamic State will continue to use cryptic communications, in the same manner that it will continue to have access to arms,” said the founder of ProtonMail, an encrypted email service.* Yes, it remains easier to adopt intrusive surveillance laws that strengthen the weak and scattered forces of cyber police in Swiss cantons.

Even this view of the wise men of the Web does not exist. “You can’t imagine the number of citizens that since last week demand that I control all numerical domains,” remarked Pierre Maudet on Friday, at a cybersecurity forum.

*Editor’s note: ProtonMail is a free and open-source web-based encrypted email service founded in 2013 and based in Geneva, Switzerland.


Une semaine après les attaques terroristes ayant fait 130 morts au cœur de Paris, tout reproche à l’encontre de la surveillance des courriels et des consultations Internet des citoyens est devenu inaudible. Incongru. Dangereux. Même au sein de partis de gauche, qui, en Suisse, ferraillent contre l’arsenal législatif de surveillance tous azimuts des communications, approuvé par le parlement le 25 septembre.

Trop d’émotions. Trop d’images terribles. Trop de morts pour rien. Exemple? Les appels, cette semaine en France, à exposer les six députés qui se sont opposés aux mesures d’exception prises dans la foulée du décret de l’état d’urgence pour trois mois. Exemple? Les attaques du directeur de la CIA contre Edward Snowden — l’homme qui a dénoncé aux États-Unis les dérives de l’agence d’écoutes NSA — laissant entendre que ce dernier aurait provoqué des failles dans la surveillance des extrémistes.

Paradoxalement, la seule critique de cette surveillance généralisée qui clignote encore reste celle des spécialistes de la cybersécurité. Moins idéologique, cette dénonciation de Big Brother porte davantage.

Non, le problème d’identification des attaques terroristes n’a pas été le manque de données mais l’échec à utiliser celles que les autorités avaient déjà. Oui, «l’État islamique continuera d’utiliser des communications cryptées, de la même manière qu’il continuera d’avoir un accès aux armes», souffle le fondateur du service de courriels cryptés ProtonMail. Oui, il reste plus aisé de faire adopter des lois de surveillance intrusives que de renforcer les maigres forces de cyberpolice éparpillées entre les cantons.

Même cet avis des sages du Web ne porte pas. Ce n’est pas le moment. «Vous n’imaginez pas le nombre de citoyens qui, depuis une semaine, me demandent de tout contrôler dans le domaine numérique», remarquait vendredi Pierre Maudet en marge d’un forum sur la cybersécurité. (TDG)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Germany: The President and His Private Army

Australia: Australia Boosts Corporate Law Enforcement as America Goes Soft

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Administration and Memes

Mexico: The Far Right: Triumph of Idiocy

Canada: Can We Still Trust American Intelligence?

Canada: To Stop Trump, Drain the Social Media Swamp

India: TikTok’s Case in the US Demonstrates How Social Media Is the New Oil