> And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either.

Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry.

Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.

Maybe it is me, who has already lived under a very similar set of laws and know that corporations are always the least hit by such laws. These are instruments that infringe on basic individual rights such as right to privacy. These instruments create systemic significant incentives to corruption, totalitarianism, (corporate and international) espionage, and so on.

Rights groups, activists, whistle-blowers, prosecuted or rather marginalised minorities, and other legitimate groups and individuals are going to be impacted by this.

Underplaying this is incredibly naïve and downright dangerous.

Good lord! That's the same logic one may employ as a criminal, say.. an inside trader!

Well of course you won't get nabbed, if they don't know!

So as soon as you do anything interesting, protest, stand up for a right, displease a cop, upset the wrong neighbour, you'll be noticed, eh?

What a great law!

Congrats, you made my neighbours wonder why I'm yelling at myself(seemingly) again.

"Poor bbarnett, yelling in his empty house again, wonder when they'll take him away Marge?"

This is a rather incredible mindset to have, IMO. Even for me who doesn't quite subscribe to the constant Big Brother panic.

This law gives the government a huge loaded gun that they can use to blast pretty much anyone they please with. But no worries, they aren't going to use it on you because you are too unimportant?

And that still completely ignores the various collateral damages - such as if encryption is effectively outlawed because the regulatory hurdles associated with it are simply too high to bother with (just look at how many US websites rather block access from the EU instead of having to deal with GDPR compliance), then even if you aren't a target for the enforcement of this law your life could be very badly affected when your service provider gets hacked or your data get intercepted and some account of yours gets hijacked.

When they suddenly do know you exist, for example because you started protesting about human rights, or climate change, or excessive governmental investigatory powers, or whatever, suddenly someone can show on your doorstep saying “Well well well, what have we got here then” and sucking their teeth.

Your argument isn’t only ill informed, it’s actively dangerous. Shame.

>Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it.

While this is generally true, it doesn't necessarily stop the provisions within the bill being used as a political weapon to wield against someone.

In other words, just because it's generally not used against small fry, doesn't mean it won't be used as a club against a particular small fry that's a thorn in the side of someone politically or judicially connected.

But with 10% more votes, this power will go into the hands of Le Pen ... and everyone, including Macron, knows what will happen.

(hell, I kind of suspect this is intentional on Macron's part. He wants to get re-elected by making the alternative to electing him catastrophic. It worked last time, sure, but obviously it needs to become more catastrophic if he's to be reelected)

Also Macron cannot be re-elected in the next elections as there is a term limit.