2023-09-17 13:39:43
Tabled by majority deputies, the text proposed “prohibiting any user of a social network from publishing, commenting or interacting using a virtual private network” (VPN). A liberticidal measure, according to some.
Will the presidential majority restrict the use of VPNs? In a few days, deputies will examine the bill aimed at securing and regulating the digital space. Adopted by the Senate last July, the latter aims in particular to fight against “exposure of minors to pornographic content» on the internet, by creating new obligations aimed at “better protect our children».
The examination of the text, expected in committee at the National Assembly from Tuesday September 19 to Friday September 22, promises to be busy, with more than 820 amendments having been tabled by elected officials at the Bourbon Palace. Among these, one of them sparked controversy this Saturday, by proposing to further regulate the use of VPNs on social networks. To the point of leading its author to withdraw it.
What is a VPN?
These devices called “virtual private network» – virtual private network – allow their users to browse the internet anonymously, discreetly and securely. They are completely legal in France, provided you do not use them.for illicit purposes”, and therefore aim to “secure your internet access when accessing services remotely».
One of the amendments tabled by the majority deputies worries about a “hole in the racket», believing that VPNs allow dishonest individuals to “extract oneself [du] protective legislative framework» French, when locating in a foreign country. He therefore proposes to force software application stores to ensure that VPNs “do not allow access to an internet network not subject to French or European legislation and regulations».
Other proposals go further to prevent VPNs from being misused, particularly by minors to browse pornographic sites in complete peace of mind. Tabled by Modem elected officials, an amendment asks the government to produce a report formulating “recommendations to combat this illicit use of virtual private networks».
Another from the same political group suggests “to require VPN providers, which allow a change of IP – email address, editor’s note -, to refuse subscription to their services to people under 18 years of age except in the case of parental consent given by one holders of parental authority», in order to avoid any circumvention by young people.
Limit the use of VPNs on social networks
Particularly controversial, an amendment carried by elected representatives Renaissance proposed “to prohibit any user of a social network from publishing, commenting or interacting using a virtual private network“. If they admitted the right to anonymity as a general rule, the authors recalled that this can fall “in the event of legal requisitions“. However, a virtual private network “blurs the possibility of identification» of the user, preventing the identification of an Internet user guilty of reprehensible behavior on social networks, they regretted.
«Although social networks constitute a real tool at the service of freedom of expression, they can in no case be a lawless zone where freedom of expression is limitless.», Considered the deputies. In order to improve the identification of the individuals concerned, the amendment therefore proposed to force platforms to “implement detection mechanisms to identify connections from a virtual private network used by users of their platform“. The people in question would then no longer have the possibility of “publish, comment or interact on the platform“. In other words, without being prohibited, the use of a VPN on a social network would have limited the Internet user’s room for maneuver.
This proposal aroused concern among users. “The use of VPN is a method of security, especially for businesses. Limiting them is a security breach. This amendment is therefore nonsense at a time of increasing cybersecurity issues.», Commented the NGO Internet society France. Many Internet users have also drawn a parallel between France and other authoritarian regimes banning these devices, worrying about a development that, in their eyes, is liberticidal.
A criticism even came from the presidential majority: “The ban on VPNs, if it were proposed, would not strengthen the security of internet users, but on the contrary considerably weaken their experience on the web.», Judged the deputy (Renaissance) Éric Bothorel.
Also read “Deepfakes”, a new scourge on the internet
On Sunday, following the controversy, the MP behind this amendment, Mounir Belhamiti, finally chose to withdraw his proposal to avoid “disrupt a debate that requires serenity“. By submitting this text, “I would like the ineffectiveness of our means of tracking down people who commit crimes online by deliberately using systems to make their identification more difficult for the judicial authorities to be questioned.», justifies the Renaissance MP. It was only an appeal amendment, designed to generate discussion, not to be voted on as is, he adds.
Denouncing “useless red rags» agitated by some, he nevertheless intends to continue his “government’s role in questioning the means used to pursue professional trolls […] who use technological concealment solutions to escape the law».
”
data-script=”
>
#controversy #amendment #aimed #regulating #anonymity #social #networks #withdrawn