The government has introduced the SREN bill, which would oblige web browsers to block certain blacklisted websites. A request that raises serious concerns about the libertarian excesses it could cause.
The government has long fought against the piracy of works and content protected by copyright or broadcasting rights. He had begun to attack IPTV with radical measures (see our article), this totally illegal practice that mainly affects the broadcasting of sports competitions – football in particular – before forcing the French Internet access providers (ISP) to more than fifty to block illegal streaming services websites – which allow to watch movies and series from legal platforms for free – after a decision of the Paris court in February 2023 (see our article). However, this blocking can be easily circumvented by regular users either by switching DNS servers or by using a VPN, two simple and perfectly legal techniques.
To counter these methods, the government wants to create domain name blacklists built into web browsers. Therefore, a new bill called SREN to secure and regulate the digital space was presented by the Minister of Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, Bruno Le Maire. “With this draft law, France is adopting a series of unprecedented and courageous concrete measures to strengthen public order in the digital sphere,” he said, pleased with the press release published by the Council of Ministers last May. One of the items would require browsers like Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or Safari to implement these blocks. The Senate has already adopted the text in the first reading and made some changes.
Pirate Site Blocking Bill: Target Web Browsers
Thanks to Article 6 of the draft law, the government would have the right to send blacklists to browsers, which would initially have to “display a message warning the user of the risk of harm if this address is accessed” for seven days. days. This message must be “clear, legible, unambiguous and understandable and [permettre] To allow users to access the official websites of the public advocacy group of the National System for Supporting Victims of Cyber Damage.” After this period, the measures would extend to the blocking.
This decision could apply “when one of its officers specifically designated and authorized for this purpose discovers that an online public communications service is engaged in manifestly operations which are those referred to in Articles 226-4-1, 226-18 and 323-1 of the Criminal Code constituting criminal offences.” Code and Article L. 163-4 of the Monetary and Financial Code”. However, the draft law goes even further, as Article 6(2) provides that the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communications (Arcom) can order web browsers “to immediately take all useful measures to prevent as much as possible access to the address of this service”. . period of three months”. A ban that can of course be extended by a maximum of six months, and then by a further six months if necessary.
Draft law to block pirate sites: a draconian measure?
This measure is far from unanimous and raises serious concerns about its draconian scale. For Mozilla, “France is about to force us to develop a dystopian technical capacity,” as the foundation put it in a lengthy blog post. She explains that while the French government’s motives are legitimate, the idea of blocking website addresses at the browser level would be “disastrous for the open internet and disproportionate to the proposed law’s objectives of fighting fraud.” ” She goes even further, saying that if this measure is implemented and respected, the technical means put in place could subsequently be used by other governments – including those that will replace Emmanuel Macron’s – to enforce internet censorship “If successfully adopted, the precedent would make it significantly more difficult for browsers to refuse such requests from other governments,” Mozilla explains.
Instead of the measures envisaged in the draft law, the Foundation proposes improving the mechanisms against malicious websites that are already present in web browsers. “Using existing anti-malware and anti-phishing offerings, rather than replacing them with government-provided offerings, device-level blocklists, is a much better way to meet the legislation’s goals,” she asserts. As a side note, the government’s request for blocking certain websites via browsers is a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – exactly that! – which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and opinion, which implies the right to freedom of expression […] To receive and impart information and ideas by any means of expression, regardless of borders”, which includes the right to express oneself online and to freely consult information and ideas – which could be jeopardized in the event of an authoritarian tendency. And that’s it. There’s no getting better! The Senate has just proposed censoring social networks during violent demonstrations in two hours and imposing a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 250,000 euros if accounts are rejected.