<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think Parminder raises some very important points. I'd like to offer a quick observation and await other input:<div><br></div><div>1. The question about how to refer to previous statements generated through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories were. We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.</div><div><br></div><div>2. I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be galvanizing around. Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward? Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB. This is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents. The US needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations. This may not be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government. So even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US policymakers.</div><div><div><div>On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Generally a well written statement. However, it
must be judged not only for what it says but also what it does
not... The statement appeals to a US government agency to protect
human rights of all citizens of the world, especially non US
citizens, which is very well. It call for all security measures
that the US "</font> <font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; " id="docs-internal-guid-1d0c1d2c-0e48-91ef-1d16-1b6b5abc5d70">must
be subject to a strong legal framework" </span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; " id="docs-internal-guid-1d0c1d2c-0e48-91ef-1d16-1b6b5abc5d70"><font face="Verdana">meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am
not convinced that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All
security measures should be subject to a strong global or
international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone
will work in an environment where we are all continually
immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least
hyper-connected, digital space. <br>
<br>
So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
society group, from calling for a global/international legal
framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
actions, of all states, including the US, are subject to a
clear international regime based on human rights, and any such
regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities. <br>
<br>
Can we discuss this here...<br>
<br>
While once in a while we as a global civil society group can
make specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
unwilling to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer
and appellate body for global justice. In doing this is a
deeper politics, and that is my principal objection to this
statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it does
not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the
statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for
the same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing
to consider this?<br>
<br>
Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are
signed by various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating
platform, without them being developed and signed on the
behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition, then after </font></span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; " id="docs-internal-guid-1d0c1d2c-0e48-91ef-1d16-1b6b5abc5d70"><font face="Verdana">being </font></span></font><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Arial; background-color: transparent; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; " id="docs-internal-guid-1d0c1d2c-0e48-91ef-1d16-1b6b5abc5d70"><font face="Verdana">signed propositioned as BestBits statements.
Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a
statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being
called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM,
Emma Llanso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> Dear all,<br>
<br>
As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the
US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
FISA. (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case
you're not familiar with this entity.) I'd like to share with
you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number
of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs
have on the human rights of individuals outside the US: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing</a>
<br>
<br>
We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment. Please
share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole
list. (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond
to email.) Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the
letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday,
giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array
of groups as possible. This is a very compressed timeframe,
unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is
August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in the schedule.<br>
<br>
The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
once we've reached that point. <br>
<br>
It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
individual letters from international groups, so please feel
free to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it
separately. We intentionally did not make recommendations to
PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that below), but
individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific
recommendations.<br>
<br>
<b>Background on the letter:</b><br>
PCLOB will be preparing a report and is <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001">accepting
comments</a> (with no limitations on who can submit comments)
until August 1st. As many of you know, it's been an uphill
battle to get any attention on this critical issue of
extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs. PCLOB
hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and
there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human
rights of people other than US citizens during the entire
hearing. We think this comment process is one of the better
opportunities that groups from outside the US will have in
making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
heard. I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to
make their own comments into this process, in addition to
considering signing this letter.<br>
<br>
As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
human rights of individuals outside the US", for several
reasons. First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad
range of groups to sign onto something urging very specific
legal or policy remedies. Further, I wouldn't want to see a
short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on
transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the
only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the
situation. Transparency is an important initial step, but it's
far from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be
emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB). Again, I'd
strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well,
particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions
for the Board.<br>
<br>
<br>
Looking forward to your comments,<br>
Emma<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?</b> - <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board">https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board</a><br>
<br>
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory
body to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
officials in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and
civil liberties are appropriately considered in the
implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch
policies related to war against terrorism. <br>
<br>
Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It
consists of five members appointed by and serving at the
pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White House
Office within the Executive Office of the President and
supported by an Executive Director and staff. <br>
<br>
The Board advises the President and other senior executive
branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy
and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the
implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch
policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against
terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate
guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these
important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board
is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the
terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines
designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties
are being followed, including those issued by the President on
December 16, 2005. In the course of performing these functions
within the executive branch, the Board seeks the views of
private sector, non-profit and academic institutions, Members of
Congress, and all other interested parties and individuals on
these issues.<br>
<br>
This agency has published <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced">13
articles</a> since 1994.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Emma J. Llansó<br>
Policy Counsel<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100<br>
Washington, DC 20006<br>
202-407-8818 | <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech">@cendemtech</a> |
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso">@ellanso</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>