Snowden Affair: France Stays Silent
Thirty-five years ago, France was one of the first countries in the world to establish a data protection law. Could it be possible for France to remain without any reaction, silent in the face of the scandal made by the PRISM system, allowing U.S. government agencies to spy on Internet activity? And for France to remain voiceless at how the whistle-blower Edward Snowden has been treated?
More than 35 years ago, we were the ones that began the debate with “Safari or Hunting the French,” a March 21, 1974 Le Monde article. We were a French journalist, a magistrate and a computer science and social sciences researcher. For us, the widespread interconnection of files, connected to a massive extension of computer science into all dimensions of everyday life, could potentially lead to a type of totalitarianism, such that it gradually erases our very conception of liberty. This warning led to the debate that resulted in a law that passed on Jan. 6, 1978.
Justified Fears
What does the PRISM scandal reveal, if not that these fears were justified and possibly worse than we thought? There are three aspects. The first is the use of technology to combat the current enemy, terrorism, by tracking the most minute details of private life — relationships, conversations, interests, travel — in order to identify the views of those who, in the eyes of legal spies in the United States, can take action.
The second aspect is the absence of clear rules in the exercise of this power through legal acts, such as the Patriot Act, which was created out of an emotion that followed the destruction of the twin towers in Manhattan in 2001. They do not specify who of the 100,000 agents in the National Security Agency has access to what particular categories of information, who controls these documents, nor through what mechanisms data exchange will be carried out with foreign secret services.
The third aspect is the blind brutality and clumsiness with which the U.S. government responded to Mr. Snowden's information: He is a traitor, not a whistle-blower; no country that wants to remain a friend of the U.S. can grant him asylum; there is an urgent need to close the encrypted messaging services that Mr. Snowden used to get in touch with human rights activists who could defend him.
The Incomprehensible Attitude of the United States
But what does this hysteria mean? When Julian Assange began the WikiLeaks operation, he made public diplomatic data that was sometimes personal, which could have put certain people in danger. But what has been revealed here? A former agent confirmed suspicions, giving an idea of the severity, highlighting the potential hidden agenda of the European secret services. Is it a crime? Or perhaps, was it to put into question the cooperation of PRISM and our kind data companions: Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? In any case, the leaders of these giants are likely eager to clear their names and demand a review of the Patriot Act so that there is more transparency! Have they been charged with treason?
The attitude of the Obama administration is even more incomprehensible, considering that it has not been long since Hillary Clinton made herself an advocate for soft power, encouraging democratic activists to use encrypted mail: It was during the Arab Spring ... The pot calling the kettle black! It is true that it is not easy to defend human usage of technology while simultaneously promoting the usage of drones, automatic captors of information that fly, spy, act out and kill at one's command.
Certainly, but should one play the good guy when one needs to simultaneously combat terrorism? The responsibilities that weigh down on Barack Obama are enormous, but does one think that terror will be easier to eradicate when we get rid of drones and spying on the Internet? One could say that Mr. Obama had been elected president because he knew how to transform contradictions in a tense country. At an international level, does he lose the legitimacy that would have given him a balanced attitude between the two twin risks of terrorism and widespread personal data collection?
Having Each Other by the Short Hairs
Facing this absence of justice and leadership, France must take the initiative. First, the France of Victor Hugo and Émile Zola must set the debate: But after all, tell us clearly what Edward Snowden has done wrong! For if there is something secret, they should say it! And if not, they are not allowed to simply leave it trapped by having each other by the short hairs instead of dealing with the problem! If there is nothing, we must recognize Snowden's honor and merit.
Then, French diplomacy must promote, in conjunction with our nationally recognized research institutes and specialists in cryptology, solutions that are secured and loyal, and that permit all democracies in the world to communicate by sure means that resist the obscene curiosity of governmental Internet spying.
Finally, it is time to engage in an initiative of great scale that can elaborate a global chart of information and liberties. Let us not huddle in Europe, the sole isle of justice. We need to include America, Asia, Africa and Oceania as well! Sure, we are very far away and have different values. But who says that a clear and audacious initiative would not summon positive forces, including from where we least expect?
More than 35 years ago, we were the ones that began the debate with “Safari or Hunting the French,” a March 21, 1974 Le Monde article. We were a French journalist, a magistrate and a computer science and social sciences researcher. For us, the widespread interconnection of files, connected to a massive extension of computer science into all dimensions of everyday life, could potentially lead to a type of totalitarianism, such that it gradually erases our very conception of liberty. This warning led to the debate that resulted in a law that passed on Jan. 6, 1978.
Justified Fears
What does the PRISM scandal reveal, if not that these fears were justified and possibly worse than we thought? There are three aspects. The first is the use of technology to combat the current enemy, terrorism, by tracking the most minute details of private life — relationships, conversations, interests, travel — in order to identify the views of those who, in the eyes of legal spies in the United States, can take action.
The second aspect is the absence of clear rules in the exercise of this power through legal acts, such as the Patriot Act, which was created out of an emotion that followed the destruction of the twin towers in Manhattan in 2001. They do not specify who of the 100,000 agents in the National Security Agency has access to what particular categories of information, who controls these documents, nor through what mechanisms data exchange will be carried out with foreign secret services.
The third aspect is the blind brutality and clumsiness with which the U.S. government responded to Mr. Snowden's information: He is a traitor, not a whistle-blower; no country that wants to remain a friend of the U.S. can grant him asylum; there is an urgent need to close the encrypted messaging services that Mr. Snowden used to get in touch with human rights activists who could defend him.
The Incomprehensible Attitude of the United States
But what does this hysteria mean? When Julian Assange began the WikiLeaks operation, he made public diplomatic data that was sometimes personal, which could have put certain people in danger. But what has been revealed here? A former agent confirmed suspicions, giving an idea of the severity, highlighting the potential hidden agenda of the European secret services. Is it a crime? Or perhaps, was it to put into question the cooperation of PRISM and our kind data companions: Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.? In any case, the leaders of these giants are likely eager to clear their names and demand a review of the Patriot Act so that there is more transparency! Have they been charged with treason?
The attitude of the Obama administration is even more incomprehensible, considering that it has not been long since Hillary Clinton made herself an advocate for soft power, encouraging democratic activists to use encrypted mail: It was during the Arab Spring ... The pot calling the kettle black! It is true that it is not easy to defend human usage of technology while simultaneously promoting the usage of drones, automatic captors of information that fly, spy, act out and kill at one's command.
Certainly, but should one play the good guy when one needs to simultaneously combat terrorism? The responsibilities that weigh down on Barack Obama are enormous, but does one think that terror will be easier to eradicate when we get rid of drones and spying on the Internet? One could say that Mr. Obama had been elected president because he knew how to transform contradictions in a tense country. At an international level, does he lose the legitimacy that would have given him a balanced attitude between the two twin risks of terrorism and widespread personal data collection?
Having Each Other by the Short Hairs
Facing this absence of justice and leadership, France must take the initiative. First, the France of Victor Hugo and Émile Zola must set the debate: But after all, tell us clearly what Edward Snowden has done wrong! For if there is something secret, they should say it! And if not, they are not allowed to simply leave it trapped by having each other by the short hairs instead of dealing with the problem! If there is nothing, we must recognize Snowden's honor and merit.
Then, French diplomacy must promote, in conjunction with our nationally recognized research institutes and specialists in cryptology, solutions that are secured and loyal, and that permit all democracies in the world to communicate by sure means that resist the obscene curiosity of governmental Internet spying.
Finally, it is time to engage in an initiative of great scale that can elaborate a global chart of information and liberties. Let us not huddle in Europe, the sole isle of justice. We need to include America, Asia, Africa and Oceania as well! Sure, we are very far away and have different values. But who says that a clear and audacious initiative would not summon positive forces, including from where we least expect?