Faced with the controversy arising from an amendment aimed at prohibiting the use of VPNthe National Assembly was quick to backtrack.
Just a few days before the examination of the bill on the security and regulation of the digital space, within which we find in particular the long-awaited anti-scam filter, the tension was extreme on the benches of the National Assembly and in public opinion. But the amendment which aimed to prohibit the use of a VPN (virtual private network) was ultimately withdrawn. Return to this hiccup from the presidential majority.
The questioning of the VPN has caused a surge, even among institutional cybersecurity players.
The outcry was widespread this weekend. Several members of the majority had tabled an amendment aimed at “ prohibit any user of a social network from posting, commenting or interacting using a virtual private network “, on the grounds that the VPN actually blurs the possibility of identification, in the case of an investigation for example.
Supported by Renaissance elected official Mounir Belhamiti, the proposal caused a stir, and in addition to the expected and not really surprising reactions from opposition deputies, it was even recognized players in cybersecurity who took out their pens. This weekend, Jérôme Notin, the boss of the victim support system Cybemalveillance.gouv.fr, recalled that his own agents used a VPN when teleworking. “ Banning them would mean either no longer being able to publish, or having to cut the VPN and therefore no longer benefit from internal security tools, which we would not do “, he railed on LinkedIn.
Because if all VPNs do not offer the same security guarantees to their users, like any digital tool we could say, they often remain an effective way to protect yourself against computer attacks, to hide your connection and others. Remember that from a legal point of view, VPN is perfectly authorized in France, as long as it is not used to carry out illegal actions.
A salutary outcry, but an open debate?
Faced with numerous denunciations and fears of censorship for some, and of a dangerous breach of democracy for others, the majority has proceeded to backpedal. MP Belhamiti therefore withdrew himself, on Sunday, the controversial amendment, “ so as not to disrupt a debate which requires serenity “.
On social networks, he justifies this about-face, explaining that he wanted “ open a debate on a subject that we consider insufficiently taken into account in public debate “. In a justification obviously guided by haste and a tight schedule, the elected official went further. “ By tabling an amendment aimed at prohibiting publication (and not consultation) on social networks via a VPN connection, it is obvious that I cannot imagine its adoption as is. ” he added. He still hopes that the right questions on “ the ineffectiveness of our means of tracking people who commit crimes online » will be asked.
On Tuesday, the text will be debated in the National Assembly, after having already been adopted at first reading by the Senate this summer. It will notably discuss the protection of citizens in the use of their electronic devices and the protection of children against online pornography, the measures mentioned are also debated.
Sources: Clubic, LinkedIn post from MP Mounir Belhamiti, LinkedIn post by Jérôme Notin.
6