Skip to content
Intelligence challenged by the legislative debate

Article reserved for subscribers

Yaà «l Braun-Pivet, Chair of the Law Commission, and Christophe Castaner, February 5, at the Assembly. Jacques Witt / SIPA

After expressing, at the end of April, his wish to see Parliament adopt a new intelligence law in 2020, Yaà«l Braun-Pivet, Chair (LRM) of the Assembly's Committee on Laws e national, know what to do with the side of the Elysà © e. In a public document setting out, in mid-July, the national strategy of intelligence, the executive power, under the pen of Pierre de Bousquet, one of the closest advisers to the Head of State, national coordinator Intelligence and the fight against terrorism, writes:  € œIt may not be appropriate to upset the overall economy of the ecosystemâ € implemented since 2015.

Mme Braun-Pivet did not want to answer in the immediate future. However, his entourage indicates that this position does not interfere with the work of the 2015 intelligence law assessment mission, before a new text that will begin its work in September. Led, in particular, by the deputy Guillaume Larrivé (The Republicans), it will deliver its own conclusions on the nature of the overhaul of the intelligence framework in France. The exchanges promise to be animated between the executive and the legislative powers on this sensitive subject for which the State still has difficulty to admit other voices than its own.

Article reserved for our subscribers Read also Sensitive data exchanges between countries may have "consequences for the private life of the French"

In April, Mme Braun-Pivet had assured World, that " Parliament has a role to play, it must not abandon intelligence issues to experts and services alone. ". His willingness to see a new legal framework echoed a finding: the 2015 law has already been the subject of six legislative changes, it has not eliminated a certain legal insecurity in the daily practice of the main French services. A new text would make it possible to bridge the ever-widening gap between the state of the law and the ongoing progress of technologies and their surveillance capabilities.

The law of 2015 had, in effect, only "whitewash" techniques already used – "illegally" – by the intelligence services. It had, moreover, only provided two new tools to the services: the real-time monitoring on the networks of the operators of telephony and suppliers of access to Internet, and the detection of a threat through the analysis by "An algorithm" communication data. Since then, the power of technical means has made such leaps in the search for personal data that the legal protection of these same data, guaranteed by law, may be endangered.