<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..<br>
<br>
However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to
also engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard
to safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and
then adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime
party to be appealed to if we are to move towards such global
norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing
can really be addressed only through global arrangements, <br>
<br>
(Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:<br>
<br>
About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does
the proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new
'strong legal frameworks' without actually suggesting their
precise forms.. Why cant we do the same for the global level even
when we yet dont have our concrete institutional proposals ready
(would we ever be :) )... At the domestic level of US gov, the
letter simply asserts the need, at the principles level, of
privacy protection through 'strong legal framework'. We can ask
the same for the global system, at the level of principles....
Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here about the
principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
precisely my point to discus it openly...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM,
Gene Kimmelman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>