I can’t read French so I only have others’ translations and intepretations to rely on, but from what I understand, the differences here are that,
France lawmakers are being direct with their legislation, rather than relying on precedence or judges’ interpretations of anti-terrorism or national security bills; and
Privileged conversations (e.g. between client and attorney) can still be admissible when recorded surreptitiously this way.
Apparently it would still need to be pre-approved by a judge. That doesn’t inspire much confidence in it not being hand-wave allowed, though.
You say that like it hasn’t been happening already for two decades.
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/
I can’t read French so I only have others’ translations and intepretations to rely on, but from what I understand, the differences here are that,
France lawmakers are being direct with their legislation, rather than relying on precedence or judges’ interpretations of anti-terrorism or national security bills; and
Privileged conversations (e.g. between client and attorney) can still be admissible when recorded surreptitiously this way.
Apparently it would still need to be pre-approved by a judge. That doesn’t inspire much confidence in it not being hand-wave allowed, though.