<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM,
Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of
a global framework for protection", though I would suggest
we slightly edit it to read "the development of a global
framework for the implementation of protections" or
something along those lines. The reason is that we already
have a framework for protections, ie the human rights
framework, but that governments seem to be happy to
disregard this when it comes to surveillance. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level
principles that do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask
for new legal frameworks from the US government? As the current
frameworks in the US have been found inadequate, so could it be held
true for the global human rights regime (arguably truer for the
latter) - because it is an undeniable fact - although often
selectively denied - that the digital space produces entirely new
realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature.... More
on US versus UN frameworks below...<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
Until governments worldwide give considerably greater
evidence of their willingness to make the protection of
human rights an integral component of their surveillance
plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on
security issues in general. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we
asking the US government for new a framework on security, I thought
we were asking for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also
for the UN. Global framework for privacy protection, not for
security. <br>
<br>
So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we
can ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they
would not come up with something worse then they have at present.
However, we cannot at all trust the UN to not come up with legal
frameworks worse than what we have at present, and therefore we
should not ever even ask them for the same thing that we are ready
to ask of the US. <br>
<br>
To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world
more than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to
do. If even Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps
nothing ever would. I am afraid that all this is of a piece with a
widespread tendency to trust US more than the UN with the
trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously cannot accept that.
As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and argued
letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
it does not. <br>
<br>
I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and
end. However, (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US
government to consider global legal frameworks on privacy
protection, especially now when Snowden disclosures tell us what
other countries could also be doing, including to the US citizens,
(2) I did want to have a discussion here on whether the group
considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for the problem
in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the
points made here are important and we do indeed need greater
clarity on this. At the same time, it's also important to keep
in mind that once statements are shared with the wider world,
maintaining a distinction between a statement supported by all
(though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention by
the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and
a statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform
might be difficult - even if we are careful to make these
distinctions, the wider world might not. <br>
<br>
Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
statements are considered to be in the latter category, and
focus our attention on coming up with criteria for which type
of statements are appropriate (or not) for Best Bits instead?
I am worried that sending out mixed messages will only
undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear
other possible solutions to that conundrum as well.<br>
<br>
</div>
Thanks and best,<br>
Anja<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza
Rodriguez <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:katitza@eff.org" target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all,<br>
<br>
It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing
support for<br>
a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that
the PCLOB<br>
isn't the right place for an investigation.<br>
<br>
PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its
weaknesses foster<br>
low, expectation politics/rhetoric. EFF want a Church
Committee,<br>
investigation or at least an existing committee with
congress or at<br>
least an existing committee with congressional subpoena
power to<br>
investigate.<br>
<br>
We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we
need<br>
a special investigatory committee, and at the very least
extant<br>
committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.<br>
<br>
For more information on our asks please check out:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas"
target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas</a><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now"
target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now</a><br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
> Dear all<br>
><br>
> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the
Call for Comment by<br>
> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
regarding the US<br>
> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT
Act and FISA. I<br>
> think the letter is already too long.<br>
><br>
> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our
comments are, the more<br>
> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood,
etc. etc..<br>
> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a
reference global<br>
> legal frameworks that does not change the basic
character and purpose of<br>
> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.<br>
><br>
> This letter makes three key points:<br>
><br>
> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong
legal framework<br>
> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a
legitimate goal and<br>
> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent
judicial<br>
> authority, and subject to public oversight.<br>
><br>
><br>
> *Surveillance of communications conducted under
Section 702 must meets<br>
> international human rights standards for
surveillance.<br>
><br>
><br>
> * In the context of online communications, the
privacy and liberty<br>
</div>
> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should
bewithin the PCLOB's<br>
<div>
<div class="h5">> statutory mandate.<br>
><br>
> We could add something along the following lines:<br>
><br>
> We believe findings and recommendations developed
by the PCLOB that<br>
> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US
persons in the context<br>
> of government surveillance would not only be
consistent with the US<br>
> government's frequently stated commitment to
'freedom online'; it would<br>
> also constitute a valuable contribution to the
eventual development of a<br>
> global framework for such protections.<br>
><br>
> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses
the term 'Americans'.<br>
> Please change. I also think that it is best to say
'findings and<br>
> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and
findings' as the<br>
> former is likely to flow from the latter.<br>
><br>
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings
designed to protect<br>
> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of
non-U.S. persons who<br>
> live outside the United States."<br>
><br>
> Ciao<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..<br>
>><br>
>> However, I see no argument here why the letter
cannot ask US to also<br>
>> engage in developing global norms and
agreements with regard to<br>
>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name
of security, and then<br>
>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all,
US is a prime party to<br>
>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such
global norms/<br>
>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that
this thing can really<br>
>> be addressed only through global arrangements,<br>
>><br>
>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also
be concerned about<br>
>> invasion of their privacy by non US government
agents.:<br>
>><br>
>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global
legal frameworks'<br>
>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose
anything concrete, does the<br>
>> proposed letter not ask the US government to
develop new 'strong legal<br>
>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their
precise forms.. Why cant<br>
>> we do the same for the global level even when
we yet dont have our<br>
>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would
we ever be :) )... At<br>
>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply
asserts the need, at<br>
>> the principles level, of privacy protection
through 'strong legal<br>
>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global
system, at the level of<br>
>> principles.... Unless of course there is a
difference of opinion here<br>
>> about the principle of a global framework
itself, in which case it is<br>
>> precisely my point to discus it openly...<br>
>><br>
>> parminder<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene
Kimmelman wrote:<br>
>>> I think Parminder raises some very
important points. I'd like to<br>
>>> offer a quick observation and await other
input:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. The question about how to refer to
previous statements generated<br>
>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very
legitimate; we may need a<br>
>>> more precise description of the letter
referred to and who the<br>
>>> signatories were. We still need to discuss
at the next BestBits<br>
>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and
governance should be.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. I fully support the idea of initiating
a discussion of what type<br>
>>> of global legal framework (or maybe
normative framework) we should be<br>
>>> galvanizing around. Maybe even a simple
call for the UN to engage a<br>
>>> discussion with all stakeholders fully
represented, to consider how<br>
>>> best to enforce human rights charters and
principles, would be a path<br>
>>> forward? Maybe others have a better
suggestion, but I wouldn't want<br>
>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the
"good enough" for the<br>
>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest
in a global discussion and<br>
>>> global policy engagement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 3. Whether or not we can all agree on
something related to the<br>
>>> global legal framework, I also urge
everyone to be pragmatic about<br>
>>> the opportunity to register your views with
the US-base PCLOB. This<br>
>>> is of course only one small piece of the
legal struggle, but it is<br>
>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to
expand the US debate<br>
>>> beyond US citizens or residents. The US
needs global input to wake<br>
>>> it up to its broader obligations. This may
not be enough to change<br>
>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to
the US-based NGO advocacy<br>
>>> that could have some impact on the US
government. So even if this is<br>
>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be
connected to something<br>
>>> related to broader global solution, I
believe it could influence US<br>
>>> policymakers.<br>
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Generally a well written statement.
However, it must be judged not<br>
>>>> only for what it says but also what it
does not... The statement<br>
>>>> appeals to a US government agency to
protect human rights of all<br>
>>>> citizens of the world, especially non
US citizens, which is very<br>
>>>> well. It call for all security measures
that the US " must be<br>
>>>> subject to a strong legal framework"
meaning here just a US legal<br>
>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that
this constitutes an adequate<br>
>>>> remedy. All security measures should be
subject to a strong global<br>
>>>> or international treaty/ legal
framework as well.. That alone will<br>
>>>> work in an environment where we are all
continually immersed in a<br>
>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at
least hyper-connected, digital<br>
>>>> space.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops
us, as a global civil<br>
>>>> society group, from calling for a
global/international legal<br>
>>>> framework to ensuring that all security
related (and other) actions,<br>
>>>> of all states, including the US, are
subject to a clear<br>
>>>> international regime based on human
rights, and any such regime<br>
>>>> 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<br>
>>>> specific appeals to one government or
the other, but I am unwilling<br>
>>>> to convert US government to be 'the'
key duty bearer and appellate<br>
>>>> body for global justice. In doing this
is a deeper politics, and<br>
>>>> that is my principal objection to this
statement - not to what the<br>
>>>> statmement says, but what it does not.
However, this problem can<br>
>>>> easily be addressed if the statement
includes an appeal for global<br>
>>>> legal frameworks for the same
purpose..... Are the framers of the<br>
>>>> statement willing to consider this?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see
statements that are signed by<br>
>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a
facilitating platform,<br>
>>>> without them being developed and signed
on the behalf of the<br>
>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after
being signed propositioned as<br>
>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw
such a reference in the press,<br>
>>>> about a statement that was never signed
by the group as a whole<br>
>>>> being called as a BestBits statement.
This proposed letter also<br>
>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of
BestBits coalition whereas<br>
>>>> it was never signed by the group as a
whole...<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> parminder<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM,
Emma Llanso wrote:<br>
>>>>> Dear all,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight<br>
>>>>> Board is accepting comments
commentary regarding the US<br>
>>>>> government's surveillance programs
under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.<br>
>>>>> (I've included some information
about PCLOB below in case you're<br>
>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)
I'd like to share with you a draft<br>
>>>>> was put together by CDT, with
feedback from a number of folks on<br>
>>>>> this list, that focuses on the
impact these programs have on the<br>
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside
the US:<br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing"
target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a
point where it's ready to be<br>
>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits
community for comment. Please<br>
>>>>> share any comments you have on the
letter text with the whole list.<br>
>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday
and so slow to respond to<br>
>>>>> email.) Ideally, we'd like to have
a final draft of the letter<br>
>>>>> text available to circulate during
the day on Thursday, giving us<br>
>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on
from as broad an array of groups as<br>
>>>>> possible. This is a very
compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but<br>
>>>>> the deadline for submitting
comments is August 1st, so there is not<br>
>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering
committee has agreed to host the<br>
>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits
website to facilitate sign-on<br>
>>>>> once we've reached that point.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a
joint letter with broad<br>
>>>>> international sign in is one way of
getting the US government to<br>
>>>>> consider the rights of non-US
persons, so is flooding PCLOB with<br>
>>>>> individual letters from
international groups, so please feel free<br>
>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter
and submit it separately. We<br>
>>>>> intentionally did not make
recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner<br>
>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below),
but individual letters are a<br>
>>>>> good opportunity to make specific
recommendations.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> *Background on the letter:*<br>
>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report
and is accepting comments<br>
>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001"
target="_blank">http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001</a>><br>
>>>>> (with no limitations on who can
submit comments) until August 1st.<br>
>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an
uphill battle to get any<br>
>>>>> attention on this critical issue of
extraterritorial impacts of the<br>
>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB
hosted an open hearing on the NSA<br>
>>>>> program earlier in July, and there
was unfortunately only a single<br>
>>>>> reference to the human rights of
people other than US citizens<br>
>>>>> during the entire hearing. We
think this comment process is one of<br>
>>>>> the better opportunities that
groups from outside the US will have<br>
>>>>> in making their opinions about the
US surveillance activities<br>
>>>>> heard. I'd highly encourage
organizations and individuals to make<br>
>>>>> their own comments into this
process, in addition to considering<br>
>>>>> signing this letter.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> As a final note, the letter
intentionally does not lay out<br>
>>>>> recommendations more specific than
"take into consideration the<br>
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside
the US", for several reasons.<br>
>>>>> First, it will likely be more
difficult for a broad range of groups<br>
>>>>> to sign onto something urging very
specific legal or policy<br>
>>>>> remedies. Further, I wouldn't want
to see a short, easily agreed<br>
>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g.
focusing on transparency) get<br>
>>>>> interpreted to mean that those
fixes are the only thing the US<br>
>>>>> government needs to do to remedy
the situation. Transparency is an<br>
>>>>> important initial step, but it's
far from the only action needed<br>
>>>>> here (a point CDT will be
emphasizing in our individual comments to<br>
>>>>> PCLOB). Again, I'd strongly
recommend groups file individual<br>
>>>>> comments as well, particularly if
you have specific recommendations<br>
>>>>> and actions for the Board.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,<br>
>>>>> Emma<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -<br>
>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board"
target="_blank">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<br>
>>>>> to assist the President and other
senior Executive branch officials<br>
>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with
respect to privacy and civil<br>
>>>>> liberties are appropriately
considered in the implementation of all<br>
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive
branch policies related to war<br>
>>>>> against terrorism.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004,
report of the National Commission<br>
>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States, the Privacy and Civil<br>
>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was
established by the Intelligence<br>
>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004. It consists of five<br>
>>>>> members appointed by and serving at
the pleasure of the President.<br>
>>>>> The Board is part of the White
House Office within the Executive<br>
>>>>> Office of the President and
supported by an Executive Director and<br>
>>>>> staff.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The Board advises the President and
other senior executive branch<br>
>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns
with respect to privacy and civil<br>
>>>>> liberties are appropriately
considered in the implementation of all<br>
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive
branch policies related to efforts<br>
>>>>> to protect the Nation against
terrorism. This includes advising on<br>
>>>>> whether adequate guidelines,
supervision, and oversight exist to<br>
>>>>> protect these important legal
rights of all Americans. In addition,<br>
>>>>> the Board is specifically charged
with responsibility for reviewing<br>
>>>>> the terrorism information sharing
practices of executive branch<br>
>>>>> departments and agencies to
determine whether guidelines designed<br>
>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy
and civil liberties are being<br>
>>>>> followed, including those issued by
the President on December 16,<br>
>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing
these functions within the<br>
>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks
the views of private sector,<br>
>>>>> non-profit and academic
institutions, Members of Congress, and all<br>
>>>>> other interested parties and
individuals on these issues.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This agency has published 13
articles<br>
>>>>> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced"
target="_blank">https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced</a>><br>
>>>>> since 1994.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<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 | @cendemtech <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech"
target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech</a>>
|<br>
>>>>> @ellanso <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso"
target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
</div>
</div>
Katitza Rodriguez<br>
International Rights Director<br>
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a>
(personal email)<br>
<br>
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights
and freedom<br>
of speech since 1990<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>