> So will this bill reduce, increase or have no effect on the attacks? If not, then what would reduce the attacks and why are the authorities not doing it already? If it will reduce the attacks, how much does it have to reduce them before we accept the intrusion on privacy as a necessary evil?
France has the most draconian laws of any Western country atm and there is no evidence attacks in France have been reduced.
They currently hold the false belief that the reason attacks succeed is because they are handled primarily via encryption.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after...
> The reports note that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the "mastermind" of both the Paris attacks and a thwarted Belgium attack ten months ago, failed to use any encryption whatsoever (read: existing capabilities stopped the Belgium attacks and could have stopped the Paris attacks, but didn't). That's of course not to say batshit religious cults like ISIS don't use encryption, and won't do so going forward. Everybody uses encryption. But the point remains that to use a tragedy to vilify encryption, push for surveillance expansion, and pass backdoor laws that will make everybody less safe -- is nearly as gruesome as the attacks themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/world/europe/attack-in-nic...
> For all the years of worry that terrorists would develop more sophisticated methods, Thursday’s attack in Nice realized a fear that turned out to be far worse: a form of violence so crude that it renders many of our usual defenses useless.
These aren't sophisticated people and they've correctly determined the government isn't capable of stopping attacks via communication mechanisms they actively monitor.