[GeekyBear]

Can the thing France just made legal be done?

> French police should be able to spy on suspects by remotely activating the camera, microphone and GPS of their phones and other devices, lawmakers agreed late on Wednesday, July 5.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/07/06/france-s...

Why would anyone stir up the civil libertarians if the thing you are making legal is not possible?

[wombat-man]

I would assume this is possible. If the gov wants to bad enough, I'd guess most OSes have a way to remotely control and observe. A state has resources to research 0days, bank them, and use them as needed. But probably not worth using unless it's for a high value target.

[dvhh]

Considering most mobile phone operator would require you to install additional software to be able to use their network and that they would most likely cooperate with the authority if asked by the justice department.

[nickserv]

That's not the case in France.

You can use any unlocked phone with any operator (assuming it can connect to EU cellular networks of course). Nothing in particular to do, just put in the SIM and it works.

I've never bought a phone from an operator, but I think it's also possible to switch operators without switching phones quite easily, no software update required.

[Simorgh]

Well, what would be considered a high-value target?

Even if warrants are initially mandated for a specific search, couldn’t this erode into, ‘it’s just a quick scan’?

What if it’s ‘useful’ to ‘quick scan’ their own President? ‘Confirming their security’.

Could this evolve into a subtle shift in the balance of power? In other words, a political crisis?

Where the intelligence agencies have informational advantages over any elected office.

From information into knowledge, you could easily have behind the scenes figures who have unmatchable insight and ability to coordinate.

Suddenly every target has value…

[csense]

If you give the government new extraordinary powers it will use them "only in necessary cases" but "necessary cases" has a way of creeping...

- Year 1: Terrorists.

- Year 2: Powerful gang leaders and drug kingpins

- Year 3: Run-of-the-mill murderers and kiddy diddlers

- Year 4: Deadbeat dads and unpaid parking tickets

- Year 5: Suspects who have encountered police and been released without being charged with a crime

Prime example: Civil forfeiture in the US. Was originally supposed to only be used on the worst of the worst drug cartel types, nowadays they'll use it to confiscate the life savings of some random black kid.

"That government governs best that governs least." You know, those limited government folks might be on to something...nah, they're all crypto grifters and crazy right wingers [/s]

[wombat-man]

This is a rambling post...

I don't know what argument you're trying to make. Governments will research 0days because other governments are doing it, and it's best if you find them first and work out a defense. You know, in case you want to mess with someone's nuclear centrifuges and to avoid having yours screwed with.

Do you think that it should not be legal for the government to investigate a crime?

The system is made up of people, some of them may abuse their access. Other laws, in theory, will hold them to account.

[vacuity]

> The system is made up of people, some of them may abuse their access. Other laws, in theory, will hold them to account.

In theory. The crux of the matter is whether there is significant abuse or not, and how well it is handled once uncovered. Based on history (PRISM, Five Eyes, etc.), I'm not at all optimistic.

[kelipso]

More than likely what happened is they made it so it's easily doable by barely trained cops and then they secretly lobbied to make it legal.