<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear all<br>
<br>
Just following up on Anja's suggestion about writing to Dunja.<br>
<br>
I think it is a great idea Anja.. why don't you send her the final
statement, and ask her for other suggestions on how we can have our
HRC demands met.. e.g. perhaps we can ask for a report on practices
and laws in place on surveillance among European states.. or is that
already available?<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<pre class="western" lang="en-US">
<font face="Verdana, serif"><font size="2"></font></font></pre>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
PRE { direction: ltr; color: #00000a; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
PRE.western { so-language: en-US }
PRE.cjk { font-family: "WenQuanYi Micro Hei", monospace; so-language: en-US }
PRE.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi", monospace; so-language: ar-SA }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; direction: ltr; color: #00000a; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
P.western { font-family: "Cambria", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
P.cjk { font-family: "WenQuanYi Micro Hei"; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
P.ctl { font-size: 12pt; so-language: ar-SA }
A:link { so-language: en-ZA }
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/06/2013 11:25, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHDVRb2GOq+Vr7O=C_buSckcSUu6eLqMTi-okMttbpsOxA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
The Internet Democracy Project will be signing this as well.
Parminder, could you explain why you felt company names should be removed?
Just wondering.
Also, if we are contacting Catalina, would it be worthwhile to write to
Dunja as well? I'd be happy to do so. Is it an endorsement we want from
them, or something else?
Just a last minute edit to propose - in the following two paras I have
moved the sentence that starts with "although the personal information
disclosed under this programme..." to the end, as I felt this made a
stronger argument. The reason I propose to do so is because its current
location immediately made me wonder about sovereignty issues and the extent
to which states have the obligations to protect the rights of non-citizens
and non-residents. By moving the sentence we have a greater chance of
pre-empting such questions:
"Affirmation of Internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross
regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important.
But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this
statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious
revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. The
introductionof surveillance mechanisms into
the very heart of the data streams of the globally central service
providers storing and communicating the majority of the world's digital
communications is a backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La
Rue notes: * "This raises serious concern with regard to the
extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability
of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance,
challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek
remedies." *Although the personal information disclosed under this
programme is subject to the oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits in secret and has no
responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of those not subject to US
jurisdiction. [delete: An immediate response is...]
Would people be ok with this change?
Finally, I didn't understand why some of the suggestions regarding possible
actions had been taken out of the main text. Could someone maybe clarify?
Many thanks,
Anja
On 10 June 2013 14:17, Joana Varon <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com"><joana@varonferraz.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names.
And thanks for the comprehension.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Hi All
IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are some changes I would have
liked to propose but due to the urgency of the issue i would not do it now.
Certainly the names of the companies involved should have not been
mentioned in the statement. Can we still do it?.)
I am sure some of you may already be in contact with him but if not
Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a useful person to talk to on
this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is attending the HR Council meeting.
Wonder if Joy is still there?
Best, parminder
On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
Dear all,
Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human Rights
Council regarding the impact of state surveillance on human rights. The
draft statement is below. We are currently reaching out to Geneva based
orgs who might be able to assist with delivery (thanks Joy) and if not we
can still publish it and do outreach.
Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be sent on this thread
in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it to the Best Bits site to
facilitate endorsement. In the meantime, if organizations or individuals
feel comfortable endorsing this draft, please reply on this thread and we
can add your name through the Best Bits system later. As a reminder, this
statement would be part of a debate at the HRC that will take place at
15:00 Geneva time on Monday. Though not ideal, this was the best time frame
we could come up with for facilitating input and sign on.
Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last 12 hours and
apologies for any shortcoming in the process because of time constraints.
Looking forward to more input and to working together to get this finalized.
Best,
Deborah
Agenda item 8:/General Debate/
Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of
State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case
Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______ organizations from
___ countries, across ___ regions. This is a truly global issue. We express
strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and
telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of
the United States of America. Equally concerning is the provision of access
to the results of that surveillance to other governments such as the United
Kingdom, and the indication of the possible complicity of some of the
globally dominant US-based Internet companies whose services and reach are
universally distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of, and may
even suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as
articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which
"Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be
protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..."[1] But during
this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression reported
(A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications
with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy
and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that
inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for
arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in
communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression". [2]
Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by governments in the cross
regional statement on freedom of expression and the Internet is important.
But civil society is extremely concerned that governments supporting this
statement are not addressing, and in fact are ignoring, the recent serious
revelations about mass surveillance in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the
personal information disclosed under this programme is subject to the
oversight of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that
court sits in secret and has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights
of those not subject to US jurisdiction.
The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the very heart of the
data streams of the globally central service providers storing and
communicating the majority of the world's digital communications is a
backward step for human rights in the digital age. As La Rue notes: "This
raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of
human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they
might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect
to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response is needed.
We call on companies that are voluntary and involuntary parties to the
violation of the fundamental rights of their users globally to immediately
suspend this practice. Such action would uphold the Human Rights Council
endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4.
We call for protection of those who have made these violations public.
As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor
should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by
citizens." We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this
case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental
human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in
promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all.
This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation specifically
relevant to the Internet and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert
Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We therefore call on the
Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent creation of a global
Internet based surveillance system. One action the Council could take would
be to follow up the Expert Panel by convening a multistakeholder process to
support the recommendation of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee
develop a new General Comment on the right to privacy in light of
technological advancements
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement">http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement</a>
[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf</a>
ENDS
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com"><genekimmelman@gmail.com></a>wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I have only one overarching
issue to raise concerning the framing of whatever groups decide to put out:
I believe it would be most powerful to challenge both the US Gvt. and
companies to explain how what they have done does NOT constitute human
rights violations, with specific details to explain their stance. I
believe all the language people are suggesting can fit within this framing,
and put the burden on others to show how our concerns are not justified.
This has more to do with long-term diplomatic impact that anything else;
the debate will continue and many of the facts will probably never be made
public -- but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil society to
always be calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on both what
facts are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by the
presentation of convincing arguments/facts.
On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org"><deborah@accessnow.org></a>
wrote:
In any case, we could still work on a statement to be released around
this discussion, or later in the HRC session, which ends this week. Jeremy,
have you had the chance to work on an outline? If not, I'm happy to help
start the drafting process. My main concern is whether we have enough time
for significant participation from a diversity of groups so that this is
coming from a global coalition.
Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a sign-on statement on
bestbits.net 5 hours before the hearing? Those who are working on the
pad can pre-endorse it there. If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll
need to instruct someone else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in
the air until then.
--
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599>
WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main">https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main</a> | #wcrd2013
@Consumers_Int | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a> |
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a>
Read our email confidentiality notice<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality></a>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.
For more options, visit <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org">deborah@accessnow.org</a>
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
--
Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/"><http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/></a>
@joana_varon
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>