Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Technology

France Bans Use of Drones To Police Protests In Paris (bbc.com) 23

Posted by BeauHD from the no-longer-allowed dept.
France's top administrative court has backed privacy campaigners by imposing a ban on police use of drones for covering public protests in Paris. The BBC reports: The Council of State said Paris police prefect Didier Lallement should halt "without delay" drone surveillance of gatherings on public roads. The ruling comes weeks after MPs backed a controversial security bill that includes police use of drones. Its main aim is to regulate how people share film or photos of police.

Privacy rights group La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) has argued that the bill's main measures violate freedom of expression and that drones equipped with cameras cannot keep the peace but track individuals instead. The Council of State ruled there was "serious doubt over the legality" of drones without a prior text authorizing and setting out their use. LQDN said the only way the government could legalize drone surveillance now was in providing "impossible proof" that it was absolutely necessary to maintain law and order. The decision is the second setback in months for Parisian authorities' drone plans. In May, the same court ruled that drones could not be used in the capital to track people in breach of France's strict lockdown rules.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Bans Use of Drones To Police Protests In Paris More

France Bans Use of Drones To Police Protests In Paris

Comments Filter:

  • I guess France has some nice observational satellites they can use.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      I'm not sure that the French military or intelligence would willingly give the information about their capabilities to a police force even if the cameras were pointed at Paris.

      • Giving the info disguised as an anonymous tipper would probably cover that just fine. Officers just do what they are told not ask where the info comes from.

        Just a theory mind you.

        • Giving the info disguised as an anonymous tipper

          Who, me? No, I'm just an anonymous tipper who happens to have access to top-secret, sub-metre-resolution spy satellite photos of these people. An ordinary, run-of-the-mill, good Samaritan citizen, that's me!

          What? Yes, a spy satellite is an autonomous, video recording, high-resolution-camera-equipped, flying surveillance device, but it isn't a drone, silly! It flies much higher, so it's out of the court's jurisdiction, right?

    • Re:High Powered Satellites Are Good Enough (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @09:42PM (#60858718)

      I guess France has some nice observational satellites they can use.

      This isn't Hollywood, observational satellites are in orbit which means they aren't stationary. They pass over once and can snap a still picture and it's minutes (at best) before you get another chance. Even with 100 of sats all specifically tasked to look at one location, you wouldn't be able to track the movements of individuals.

      Go read up on how satellite imagine works, kid.

  • Watch Police (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cygnusvis ( 6168614 )
    The real deal here is that we also cannot use drones to watch police.

    • The real deal here is that we also cannot use drones to watch police.

      The ban does not include any restrictions on the use of drones by private citizens.

      • Those are banned by other regulations, mostly those governing model aircraft. Usually that means you can’t fly over built-up areas or crowds, and you must keep line of sight.

        It’s a bit weird that they would stop the police from using these, and tracking individuals is exactly what they should be doing. Just like the plainclothes officers in the crowd are doing. Some people use the anonymity of the crowd to hide and commit crimes, but the police are getting better at spotting them, apprehendin
        • As I see it, if you're engaged in a public political act like a protest, not only can you not rely on "the anonymity of the crowd", you can not expect anonymity and should not want it anyway. You're going out to tell the world, "Here I am, hear my grievance." That is an implicit demand to be personally recognized! If you're afraid of letting people know what you think, why are you in the street telling them?

  • This is a technological step backwards.

    If it had been AI face recognition they were banning then we could understand such a move as there are reasonable concerns regarding the quality of such software.

    However banning drones is just plain dumb. We already have helicopters and various public CCTV cameras plus an unknown amount of private CCTV cameras, not to mention the incredible amount of mobile phone cameras of today. How exactly do drones there make much of a difference?

    I would rather argue that a police

    • It's completely ridiculous! Forget whether anyone else can document it, you're already demanding to be recognized by the government as someone with a grievance against it for which you seek redress. You can't expect to have it both ways.
  • Really, they don't even need to have cameras, people just need to think they do. People are less likely to break the law if they think they're on camera, so seeing a drone will make someone less likely to break the law. No tracking necessary.

    Which, and let's be honest here, shouldn't have any stifling impact on public speech and assembly. If you go into the street to protest, you're publicly identifying yourself as pissed off and putting your name behind a demand for redress. In a repressive nation th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Herve5 ( 879674 )

      Sabbede, all you say is right today, but you may ignore that the present French president, Macron, was elected in front of a full-right-wing racist contender, who if she gets elected next time would immediately use such a law to track, explicitly, opponents (as defined by 'just not the same skin color, political side or nationality as hers').
      So this law being repelled is not really a slap to Macron (only the most stupid left-wing say this), it's merely a manner to be more robust in case the worst happens.

      Al

  • France bans use of police to police protests in Paris. Sure, why not? Use mental health workers instead.

  • Paris police prefect Didier Lallement should halt "without delay" drone surveillance

    Usually it is not a good odd when police leader gets known enough that random people can tell his or her name. I guess that for a french prefect, being slashdotted is an terrible odd

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close