So far most coverage of the loi relative à la sécurité globale has focused on article 24, which prompted widespread protests across France.
But this is only one part of the bill. Here's a look at the rest of it.
In its entirety the bill is a long read of 32 articles that touch upon a broad range of issues – from road security to drones to how municipal police are organised.
- Chapter 1 (articles 1-6) concerns municipal police. It seeks to, in the bill’s own words, improve coordination between national and municipal police, and to give local officers extended powers on some issues. The bill opens for the creation of a municipal police in Paris.
- Chapter 2 (articles 7-19) addresses issues of security in the private sector, notably giving private security agents extended powers.
- Chapter 3 (articles 20-22) is called “videoprotection and taking of images” and addresses the use of drones and security cameras.
- Chapter 4 (articles 24-27), “issues regarding interior security”, is the one containing the controversial article regarding rules on publishing images of police officers, which now will be amended.
- Chapter 5 (articles 28-29) concerns road security and gives police more powers to enforce alcohol checks.
- Chapter 6, 7 and 8 have just one article each: article 30 is called “diverse”, article 31 “overseas territories” and article 32 (“compensation by the state”) concerns a new tax that would be installed to fund the changes in the bill. None of these have caused particular outrage.
(article continues below)
See also on The Local:
So which of these points are controversial?
1. Drones – Article 22
Drone use is currently very tightly regulated in France and one of the most contested points in the bill is that it would loosen up the rules regulating use of drones by law enforcement.
The bill does not employ the term drones but rather caméras aéroportées (airborne cameras).
Danielle Obono, MP of leftwing party France Unbowed (La France Insoumise) called drones an “Orwellian tool” and said the bill would open for “mass surveillance” during the parliamentary hearings this week.
Proponents say the law is restrictive and its legal framework constructed so that drones will only be used in necessary cases such as to prevent acts of terrorism or to help rescue people who are lost in the mountains or at sea.
But France's Défenseure des Droits (Human Right's Defender) said the law would allow for an “intrusive” use of drones, notably during protests.
This was echoed by the United Nations' Human Rights Council, which expressed “serious concern over the usage of drones with cameras, as a particularly intrusive method, is likely to have a deterrent effect on individuals in public space who wish to participate in peaceful assemblies.
3. Surveillance cameras – Article 21
Article 21 gives police extended access to surveillance footage by allowing them direct access to security camera images in situations where police officers, goods or individuals are threatened. Currently police do not have direct access to such footage and in general there is a lot less CCTV surveillance in France than in many other countries.
Article 21 also provides for that police may use images captured by their own security cameras “to inform the public”.
Currently, such images may only be used internally as a teaching tool.
Interior minister Darmanin has defended this extension as a necessary means to prevent “one-sided accounts” of police interventions.
“Why should the law enforcement be the only ones not able to release images to the public?” a Darmanin aide told 20 minutes, referring to cases where videos depicting police violence is uploaded online without a “full account” of the incident.
But Claire Hédon, France's Human Right's Defender, said in a statement that allowing for such sharing of information “would be contrary to our European commitments as well as to our constitutional obligations,” because the images in question were of a nature that would allow for the person to be identified.
Amnesty has also said this would interfere with individuals' rights to privacy.
“What are they going to do? Broadcast images from these pedestrian cameras? This does not allow for a respect of privacy,” Anne-Sophie Simpere, from Amnesty International France, told Reporterre.