Intelligence Act, contained provisions censored by the Constitutional Council? – The World

The Constitutional Council has validated, Thursday, July 23, most of the law on intelligence, whose controversial “black boxes” . However, it has censored three provisions of this law, which legalizes certain practices of the intelligence services.

The proceeding had been seized by the Head of State and President of the Senate, after adoption Ultimately this much criticized law on June 24 A group of 106 MPs from all sides had also addressed an appeal to the Constitutional Council, caring “ Implementation of these intrusive and detrimental to respect for private life”.

• The procedure for “operational emergency”, contrary to the right to privacy

The intelligence bill provided for two situations “emergency” , allowing intelligence services to override the normal control procedures in the implementation of a targeted surveillance.

First, a “absolute emergency” , enables service do without the advice of the National Control Commission technical intelligence (CNCTR), established by the Act but not the Prime Minister’s authorization. It was deemed consistent with the Constitution by “wise men”.

However, they have censored a provision on the “operational emergency” , “ the single procedure to derogate from the prior grant of an authorization by the Prime Minister or one of his collaborators “said the Constitutional Council in a statement. She could also do without the opinion of the CNCTR. “A manifestly disproportionate interference with the right to respect for privacy and the secrecy of correspondence” , explain the “wise men”.

• Monitoring Measures International considered too vague

The law also introduced the international monitoring measures to alleviate control procedures when the “ends” of communication is located abroad. Specifically, the monitoring of trade between a person located in France and a person located abroad was facilitated.

The Constitutional Council rejected this provision, saying its too soft outlines. The text defined “neither operating conditions, conservation and destruction of the collected information (…), nor those of the control by the CNCTR” .

ARCEP (Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Posts), requested for the technical side of this measure had also highlighted the difficulty of determining the location of the two interlocutors. This opened the door to mistakes: it may be that digital communications between two people based in France go through abroad – there would be a risk that the monitoring of their data is submitted by mistake to a control less important.

• A minor financial provision censored

The Constitutional Council also censored a third provision, less important, relative the financing of the CNCTR. Just because it has no place in the law on intelligence as it falls, according to him, the “ domain reserved for finance acts .”