La Quadrature du Net has a detailed analysis of the "8 December Case" where a number of suspects were rounded up and have been kept behind bars since December 2020. Their case is schedule for October 2023 and hinges more or less entirely on the observation that the group used encrypted software, especially communications software. The basic use of encryption is used to hand wave away the questions about the lack of evidence.
La Quadrature du Net has been alerted to the fact that, in the context of the "8 december" case, not only the use of commundicatgions [sic] encryption tooals [sic] (WhatsApp, Signal, Protonmail, Silence, etic [sic].) but also the possession of technicale documentation and the organisation of digital hygiene training courses are being used to "demonstrate" a so-called "clandestine behaviour" revealing the "terrorist nature" of the group5.
We have had access to certain elements of the file confirming this information. We have chosen to make them visible in order to denounce the criminalisation of digital practices at the heart of our day-to-day work and the manipulation to which they are subjected in this affair.
Mixing fantasies, bad faith and technical incompetence, a police story has been constructed around the (good) digital practices of the accused, with the aim of staging a "clandestine group", "conspirative", "conspiratist" and therefore... terrorist.
The elements of the investigation that have been communicated to us are staggering. Here are just some of the practices that are being misused as evidence of terrorist behavior
- the use of applications such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, Silence or ProtonMail to encrypt communications ;
- using Internet privacy tools such as VPN, Tor or Tails7 ;
- protecting ourselves against the exploitation of our personal data by GAFAM via services such as /e/OS, LineageOS, F-Droid ;
- encrypting digital media;
- organizing and participating in digital hygiene training sessions;
- simple possession of technical documentation.
The gist is that the authorities are seeking to establish a position where simply having used encryption is sufficient evidence in and of itself of crime and conspiracy to commit crime.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 08 2023, @07:07AM (15 children)
If use of encryption is already sufficient evidence of crime, then anyone who ever visited a HTTPS site is a criminal. I doubt there are many people in France that never did that.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ShovelOperator1 on Thursday June 08 2023, @09:25AM (13 children)
That's not it - the objective now is to make anything a crime if the corporation or government wants that. It doesn't matter is anyone doing it or not, generally if it is done by corporation, it's OK.
I will tell again, it's like this recent encoding with metamodels. If I re-encode Hollywood's movie with my compression algorithm (let's say x264) and share it with my friend, I am evil. If corporation encodes my website with their algorithm (let's say coefficients for ANN) and even sells it without my permission, they are clean.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday June 08 2023, @09:53AM (1 child)
Not sure if it is completely about that in France (although will concede the correct government is very "pro corporate" in the American sense).
At least from friends who still live in France, the general view is that the current government is deeply unpopular (something like 70% disapproval rating), and the protests and strikes that have been ongoing for years against them have been getting worse.
A government that knows it is deeply unpopular, and still rams its agenda through in an undemocratic way will eventually develop paranoia against the populace. They will start seeing plotters, criminals and traitors in the shadows. With that, any hidden communication that they cannot access or review will be considered as potentially plotting against the state. Hence they tighten their grip on the populace and its ability to communicate.
If it also helps their corporate buddies become even richer, that is more of a silver lining really. It is more about keeping the population under tight control.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by quietus on Thursday June 08 2023, @10:23AM
As to government: the current Macron government is outgoing anyway, and effectively has lost all power due to his (Macron's) series of gaffes. Fer chrissakes, the guy had to beg on television two months ago to give him 3 months [of calm], to which the clear and resounding answer seems to be a dry 'Non'. At this stage he may propose a law that gives every French citizen 3 additional months of paid vacation, a wage raise of 300 percent, as many maitresses as he (or she) likes, and a golden haired pony, and it will still be voted down.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:23AM (10 children)
Is the French legal system still guilty until proven innocent?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by quietus on Thursday June 08 2023, @02:51PM (1 child)
In general they do not yet parade you in front of the media with handcuffs on before the trial begins, if that's what you mean.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2023, @03:18PM
Maybe not, but France is still trying to get Canada to extradite (again!) Prof. Hassan Diab [wikipedia.org], after France kept him in prison without trial for several years until he was ultimately released due to the lack of any credible evidence.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday June 08 2023, @03:42PM (7 children)
Sort of... I live in France but I have only seen a few reports on this matter in 16 years. Usually there is additional evidence to suggest that a serious crime has been committed and that they have a substantial reason to believe that there is evidence on your computer.
As I understand it, if you have an encrypted drive the Gendarmerie can ask for the password. They don't like it if you refuse but you can still do so. What they then do is wheel you into court and get the judge to order you to give your password to the authorities. Failure to do so now is seen as contempt of court, and they can put you in prison until you comply with the judge's order or you reach the limit of imprisonment for that offence. I don't know what that limit is.
There is speculation, but I have not actually seen it reported in public, that they then wheel you back in front of the judge again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The only case that I have read was several years ago and there was no shortage of evidence of his other crimes but not the one crime in particular that depended on the contents of the disk drive.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday June 08 2023, @04:54PM (6 children)
IANAL - and my French is adequate but not good.
The logic, after a bit of research, is that if you have the ability to prove your innocence then you are obliged to do so. Anything else can be viewed as being obstructive. Therefore if you can decrypt your disk to prove your innocence then you should, under French law, do so.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 08 2023, @05:24PM (1 child)
Ollie North covered this one years ago: I am sorry, sir, I do not recall my password.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday June 08 2023, @06:26PM
I have taken that a stage further. My LUKS encryption is 4096 bits. I only unlock the boot partition which is different for each computer. If the computer network is not set up properly then the computer cannot even read the keyfile that is actually somewhere else.
As the police in most countries simply take the whole network, I cannot tell which computer is which, can I? I know which is which by their position and room (that's my story and I am sticking to it!). As they look alike I cannot help them. And I sure has hell cannot remember the 4096 bits of random data for 18 machines.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday June 09 2023, @05:10PM (3 children)
That's where I think a lot of countries have things backwards and where a lot of corruption is able to creep in. A person shouldn't need to prove their innocence in the court of law. The court should have ample evidence that a crime has been committed and not be biased against an innocent person.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 10 2023, @05:39AM (2 children)
This is based on Napoleonic law as is much of the French legal system. Your laws were created much more recently and based in part on a different country's law.
Which legal system are you suggesting has less corruption, and what would be your evidence?
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday June 10 2023, @06:18AM (1 child)
French law has the same presumption of innocence as American law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen [wikipedia.org]
As for what you originally described about providing evidence to the police, that's not really any different from American law. I described a similar issue in a comment this morning: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=55892&cid=1310670 [soylentnews.org]. Two reporters had received leaked grand jury testimony. Courts ruled that the first amendment protected their right to publish the leaked testimony. However, the government still wanted to know who leaked the testimony, and requested the reporters turn over that information. The reporters planned to refuse the government's request, which could result in them being jailed for contempt of court. I'm not seeing a difference between American law and French law here.
It's less clear to me what protections France has against self-incrimination. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment states that a person cannot be forced to testify against themselves. This protection extends beyond just a court of law, to testimony before Congress and also when stopped by the police. When the police question a person, that person doesn't know what crimes the police might be investigating, and so virtually any statement could potentially be self-incriminating. For that reason, a person has the right to remain silent when being questioned by the police, outside of perhaps providing their name and address. From what I can tell, French law recognizes the right to remain silent, but it's less clear to me what protections there to not require a person to testify against themselves.
THIS ACCOUNT IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday June 10 2023, @06:44AM
You are quite right. The only difference that I am aware of is the one I mentioned: one should be prepared to 'prove' one's innocence if one has the ability to do so. The authorities still have to provide evidence that is convincing to a court. They still have to follow legal procedures. The judge can, if you are able, expect you to provide your defence to avoid wasting time or whatever other justification the law is based upon. The judge still has broad spectrum of responses to your refusal to do so, including accepting your refusal without any detriment or punishment.
However, IANAL and I cannot say what the law is regarding self-incrimination. I haven't needed to know. I would always want a professional interpreter and my lawyer present should that ever be the case. But as I, from time to time, socialise with several members of the local gendarmerie I will see if they are prepared to answer that question in a level of French that is understandable to an average person. French legalese is as indecipherable to many people here as their own versions of the law are to others.
I don't think for 1 minute that they will tell me what tricks they could employ to get around any restriction place upon them. We socialise but there are limits :-)
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday June 08 2023, @10:20AM
Great! That means the authorities have a reason to arrest anyone when they need to.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by quietus on Thursday June 08 2023, @10:12AM (7 children)
I've read a bit on La Quadrature du Net somewhere in 2014-16, when I received an IEEE invite to give my opinion on something related to data privacy in one or the other EU working group; they were invited too. They seemed to me to belong right along with the tin-foil-hat group, convinced that the government was gathering files on every citizen.
If you do a quick scan of the French-language blogs linked to this case, it quickly becomes clear that this has little to do with digital surveillance, though that is the somewhat inevitable spin that La Quadrature will give on it.
This case is really about 8 people across France, all of which had contact with the same person. That guy was under surveillance by the DGSI (somewhat akin to the FBI, but with croissants instead of donuts) because he was known to have travelled back and forth to Syria, specifically to a region called Rojava [wikipedia.org], and having participated in combat there.
Guy returns to France, and starts organizing 'airgun parties' with his 8 friends, which all call themselves comrades, talk a lot about international solidarity, and use encrypted chats and the Tor network. In France. Where similar guys tried to blow up a complete soccer stadium, machine-gunned a whole newspaper redaction, a rock concert, a number of popular bars, and drove a heavy truck straight through a mass of people celebrating their equivalent of 4th of July.
These guys are probably not the brightest of cookies, but it's hard to blame the police here of being just a little cautious.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 08 2023, @10:22AM (1 child)
> convinced that the government was gathering files on every citizen.
Most governments are. It is now the law in the UK that the govt does so.
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Friday June 09 2023, @07:06PM
> > convinced that the government was gathering files on every citizen.
> Most governments are. It is now the law in the UK that the govt does so.
So given their track record with following the law, at least the UK isn't gathering files on every citizen
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:26AM
I'm not saying the news on the "airgun parties" is fake or overblown, but if it lacks hard evidence as much "news" these days does....
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:52AM
Its pretty wild how the actual story is being almost entirely covered up and replaced with a fake debate about "um encryption is not bad and anyone who thinks encryption is bad is themselves bad"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_December_2020_incident [wikipedia.org]
The TLDR is governments get pissed off if you fight as a citizen in other people's wars on your own, generally, and they get even more wound up if you carefully imitate terror group activity during an era of increased terror group activity.
Another more pragmatic way of looking at it, is say some gang of idiots gets busted for 25 felonies plus smoking weed making 26 charges total, then tries to get the entire case overturned by arguing as vocally as humanly possible that smoking weed is a victimless crime and please ignore everything else they did, because bro 420 dude weed is lit.
(Score: 2) by ShovelOperator1 on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:58AM (2 children)
First of all, I have been to France many times, and I was speaking with French people. It was not in the recent times of protests, but in times of the massive war propaganda in France - around 2014-2019. I like this country, especially its southern sides and the Capital. However, and while I really don't want to go into politics, I see lots of parallels between French propaganda these times, this about "special operations" in countries because they decided that keeping colonial borders is not a good idea, and the eastern propaganda now, about "special operations" today, reasons the same. Unfortunately, the social impact is also the same.
It was so contrasting especially because France had in 1980s and 1990s a very specific and strict law about state media, but simultaneously giving surprisingly large support for a very small, independent publishing. These times, some small magazines which would be burned in the USA instantly, were freely published, yet of course in a very small volume, in France.
The problem is that the same fearmongering is resulting in approval for more and more tyranny in the society. This is the problem which in its current stage, after the guns started to fire, cannot be fixed with voting cards, unfortunately.
TL_DR: That's how a military-grade version of "think_about_the_children" looks like :).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by quietus on Thursday June 08 2023, @03:39PM (1 child)
I doubt whether Le Canard Enchainé or Le Monde Diplomatique would be burned in the US -- after all, you've got counterpunch [counterpunch.org].
As to your war propaganda thingy, and what you call 'special operations': you're referring to the intervention in Mali, which was (and still is) an EU operation; the French actually retreated from that operation last year. Think peacekeeping ala the UN, but with Westerners instead of the usual Pakistani or African ones. Comparing that operation to the Ukraine invasion: nice strawman you have there.
(And finally, about your state media thingy in the 80s and 90s: those were the years (including the 2000s) where the same guy who was the major stakeholder in one of Europe's largest defense companies, EADS, also managed to gain control of nearly all the major newspapers and the bulk of school books publishing houses. I'm talking about Arnauld Lagardère, here -- Sarkozy was later best man to one of his daughters' weddings, if I remember correctly.)
(Score: 2) by ShovelOperator1 on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:20PM
France has an enormous international military tradition and indeed, many of the operations were also conducted with other EU countries. I was writing about the "support" during the Arab countries movements around 2012-2018. Initially, media pointed this as "People good dictators bad" when these people were progressionists and not touched the borders. Then, suddenly, when people in these countries found that their mentality is better with local tradition and started to mess with the borders, the media started "Europe good, people bad" narrative. This just seems to be some kind of sensitive problem. Seeing again that another country tries to do something with proxy republics with ad-hoc borders calls to some memories.
Thanks about this explanation of the media. And no, not about these newspapers. I have somewhere a French ham radio magazine from early 80s in which there is an article presenting the precise details of identification of a station belonging to ?SDCE? (I don't remember this acronym well) French intelligence agency, including source of transmitters and predicted schedule based on songs they played before messages. Quite nice detective work, definitely, that's why I saved this magazine, but in all other countries even today publishing such article even in so niche magazine is asking for a publishing anathema at least. And to be even more direct, the same magazine states, yet I'm not sure if it's true, that these times the whole FM band in France was national stations-only.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Thursday June 08 2023, @10:21AM (9 children)
I do not know enough about the circumstances to comment on the case itself, but there is a relevant human psychological failing.
Assuming that the authorities have made a mistake, the longer they do not admit it, the harder it is for them to admit a mistake has been made - and in fact a lot of effort will be put into 'saving face'.
I would say that, on the face of it, criminalising the mere use of encryption tools is a nasty path to go down. I use them to prevent identity theft if I lose my notebook computer or phone - both my notebook computer and phone, and also backups, are protected by LUKS full disk encryption. Microsoft Windows makes 'full disk encryption' easy with Bitlocker, but of course, the keys are usually (if not always) available to the authorities in ways not built in to LUKS.
Should governments have access to all data for public safety reasons? Governments say yes. They also have (mostly) legal use of force to compel people to comply. Most people either don't think about it, or trust their government enough to not want to fight for the right to encrypt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DadaDoofy on Thursday June 08 2023, @12:10PM (6 children)
"Most people either don't think about it, or trust their government enough to not want to fight for the right to encrypt."
The fact that, encryption is a right already guaranteed by our constitution's 4th amendment, is largely forgotten. Today's "educators" consider the constitution to be an inconvenient anachronism, so a whole generation is mostly ignorant of their basic rights.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Thursday June 08 2023, @03:08PM (4 children)
"our constitution" - I assume you mean the Constitution of the USA. Doesn't apply globally.
Now, if the right to encrypt were included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Friday June 09 2023, @12:09PM (3 children)
Yes, I'm American so that's what "our constitution" means.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 10 2023, @05:48AM (2 children)
I am also in this community. I am not an American. Does your use of 'our' refer to your unstated country, this community, or some other unspecified group of people? I don't think you realise how many other nations are represented here in our little part of the internet.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Sunday June 11 2023, @01:24PM (1 child)
I'm fully aware SN's membership is not comprised only of Americans. However, I'm an American commenting from an American perspective, so yes, my "we" means Americans.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday June 11 2023, @02:15PM
I understand. The story is from France and some Americans (I am not saying you) think that their Constitution applies to everybody, and that US law and freedoms apply to us all.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday June 10 2023, @06:38AM
That's a bit of a stretch. The Fourth Amendment restricts the conditions where a police can conduct a search and seize evidence. But it doesn't really say anything about what measures a person can take to secure their possessions. There's a stronger legal argument that encryption is protected under the right to privacy, which is implied but not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
However, during the Cold War and even for a few years afterwards, encryption was classified as a munition and its export was restricted. Although encryption regulations have changed, I believe that some cryptography devices intended for military use are still subject to export restrictions. The historical precedent of encryption for military use and the subsequent regulation opens the door for another legal argument. I'm no lawyer, but I think there's a very compelling legal argument that encryption is protected by the Second Amendment.
However, this is only valid under American law. The Constitution doesn't apply in France, which is what this story is about.
THIS ACCOUNT IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 08 2023, @12:24PM (1 child)
>criminalising the mere use of encryption tools is a nasty path to go down.
Agreed, but... the basic regulations of amateur radio do this. The paper mail system has been subject to government inspection off and on since forever.
Many people still don't understand that encryption can't be opened like a sealed envelope, and when they learn that they usually take the "only someone with something criminal to hide would do that" lack of understanding of the 5th amendment type of stance.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dr Spin on Friday June 09 2023, @12:57AM
criminalising the mere use of encryption tools is a nasty path to go down.
Not true
I for one look forward to all the major executives of all the major banks being sent down for life for not exposing our data to hackers. and secret services being required to publish national secrets by posting them on billboards
It could be the beginning of a new era of sanity.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Thursday June 08 2023, @11:58AM
I'm sure Brandon's DOJ is watching this very closely and taking notes on how they can use this against his political enemies. I'm quite surprised they didn't think of it first.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday June 08 2023, @12:06PM (1 child)
LOL it's a second amendment argument
We need to ban assault encryption. No one needs end to end encrypted chat for sporting purposes.
How are gun rights in France? Not so good, huh? Well get used to encryption software being treated the same way using the same arguments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by isostatic on Friday June 09 2023, @07:04PM
You know the US prevented encrpytion for being used for years right, despite your vaunted second ammendment. And just like the fact you can't own a nuclear weapon or mutated anthrax vial (for duck hunting or whatever), you couldn't own pgp.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/z433zx/the-second-amendment-case-for-the-right-to-bear-encryption [vice.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 08 2023, @12:23PM (2 children)
Do kids still form "secret clubs" and communicate in code, dabble in steganography, and use code words that only they know the meanings of? I think most kids in my generation did so. I remember the silly girls blathering away about meaningless nonsense - only to learn after I married that the girls were actually talking about us guys!
Is all of that going to be criminal conduct now?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2023, @09:49PM
All it would take for you to support that would be the sight of a dude in a dress.
(Score: 2) by Ingar on Friday June 09 2023, @05:42PM
Oupour sepecrepet lapanguapuage loopooked lipike thipis, buput ipin Duputch. Ipi bepet youpou wepere apa mepembeper.