0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is it right that police upload malware to users merely suspected of a crime without their consent, knowledge, or a court order? That might be what supporters of this controversial piece of legislation might think. The surveillance legislation known as LOPPSI 2 has made its way to the senate.A little over a year ago, we broke the news in English that France was gearing up for a rather unprecedented piece of surveillance legislation. The legislation would allow police to upload malware including tracking cookies, Trojan horses and keyloggers to unsuspecting users without any need to explain why they did this for a period of four months. The intended target is basically people who are suspected of a general crime, although this would include file-sharers as well. A month later, the matter was being heavily debated and a cyber expert in France discussed the proposed law.Since then, things more or less died down thanks to HADOPI soaking up all of the attention as it precariously moved through the legal process enough times to finally be permitted to pass. Implementation, to this day, is still being worked out.All that has changed because the LOPPSI 2 legislation is back in the headlines once again. The legislation has, according to 01net, has moved to the senate where it is currently being debated. The translated headline pretty much said it all with “Loppsi filtering, cookies and CCTV in Senate debate”The crazy thing about the timing of this is the fact that it was just the other day, we were reporting how internet filtering in Australia has effectively died thanks, in part, due to all the human rights and free speech concerns.My question is, when it comes to technology related law at all, why does it seem like politicians around the world are racing to come up and pass the worst laws around?