With checks and balances, enhanced security need not erode privacy
The jihadist killing spree that left 17 dead and paralysed Paris for days in January has prompted French lawmakers to grant the state sweeping new powers to spy on its own citizens' communications.
Had they been in place already, would they have prevented the Kouachi brothers killing 12 people at the satirical magazine , or averted the taking of hostages at a kosher grocery by Amedy Coulibaly, who killed four of them plus a policeman? Not necessarily, say critics, who point out that the Kouachis and Coulibaly were already targeted by intelligence agencies, which need more resources and funding to investigate suspects, rather than wider powers.
However, despite France's respect for civil liberties and privacy, and the opposition of internet companies and civil-liberties advocates, the new measures aroused little debate. European public opinion began shifting long before the Paris slaughter. Indeed, Britain has long tolerated CCTV street surveillance and France's new laws legalise covert snooping. In the internet age, expectations of privacy are much lower. For example, if Hong Kong were targeted by terrorists we could expect more public support for unprecedented, intrusive security measures. In putting security ahead of privacy, France is saying where it stands on a question that many other major nations may have to face one day. That said, judicial oversight and checks and balances should not be dispensed with lightly.
