<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Good discussion and important issues. Parminder raises valid points
about the need for us to have a more robust discussion around the
need for global approaches and/or frameworks to protecting rights.
<br>
<br>
For this particular effort though I would, as suggested by Anriette,
keep the focus on responding to the PCLOB and identifying our
concerns within that framing. I think the additional para as
proposed by Anriette makes sense but I would suggest that we phrase
it as "to the developing global framework" rather than "<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"><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">to
the eventual development of a global framework."</span></span>
There are components of a global framework in place - for example,
the rights (and obligations) that we seek to have governments
uphold. Hopefully the findings and recommendations of the PCLOB
will lend themselves to strengthening/evolving the global framework.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/07/2013 09:33, Carolina Rossini
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I will work on Anriette suggestions. <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Gene
Kimmelman <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thanks Anriette, excellent
suggestions!
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Dear all<br>
<br>
My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the
Call for Comment by the US Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
government's surveillance programs under the
PATRIOT Act and FISA. I think the letter is
already too long.<br>
<br>
The more focused and to the point (and brief) our
comments are, the more likely they will be
discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
However, I do have a proposal for how to include a
reference global legal frameworks that does not
change the basic character and purpose of the
letter as one that addresses an official US body.<br>
<br>
This letter makes three key points:<br>
<br>
<div
style="line-height:1;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><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">*
Government surveillance must be subject to a
strong legal framework that is transparent,
necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
proportionate to that goal, authorized by a
competent judicial authority, and subject to
public oversight. <br>
</span></div>
<div
style="line-height:1;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><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"><br>
</span><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">*Surveillance
of communications conducted under Section 702
must meets international human rights
standards for surveillance.</span></div>
<br>
<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">*
In the context of online communications, the
privacy and liberty rights of non-U.S. persons
outside the U.S. should be</span><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">
within the PCLOB’s statutory mandate.<br>
<br>
We could add something along the following
lines:<br>
<br>
We believe </span><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"><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">findings
and recommendations developed by the PCLOB
that ensure that protection of rights of US
and non US persons in the context of
government surveillance would not only be
consistent with the US government's frequently
stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it
would also constitute a valuable contribution
to the eventual development of a global
framework for such protections. </span><br>
<br>
Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still
uses the term 'Americans'. Please change. I also
think that it is best to say 'findings and
recommendations' rather than 'recommendations
and findings' as the former is likely to flow
from the latter.<br>
</span><br>
"<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">We
urge you to make recommendations and findings
designed to protect the human rights not only of
Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who live
outside the United States."</span><br>
<br>
Ciao<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<div>On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <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 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>
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene
Kimmelman wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think Parminder raises
some very important points. I'd like to offer
a quick observation and await other input: <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net></a>>
wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
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 " must be subject to a strong legal
framework" 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 being 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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma
Llanso wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">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"
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>
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>
*Background on the letter:* <br>
PCLOB will be preparing a report and is
accepting comments <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>
(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>
*PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
<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 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 13 articles <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>
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:202-407-8818"
value="+12024078818" target="_blank">202-407-8818</a>
| @cendemtech <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech"
target="_blank"><https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech></a>
| @ellanso <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso"
target="_blank"><https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso></a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.apc.org/" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692" value="+27117261692" target="_blank">+27 11 726 1692</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><b>Carolina
Rossini</b> </div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><i>Project
Director, Latin America Resource Center</i></div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Open
Technology Institute</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font
color="#330099"><b>New America Foundation</b></font></div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">//</div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div><font color="#3333ff"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://carolinarossini.net/"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
value="+16176979389" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+ 1
6176979389</a></font><br>
<font color="#666666">*</font><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com"
style="color:rgb(102,102,102)" target="_blank">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a><font
color="#666666">*</font></div>
</div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font
color="#666666">skype: carolrossini</font></div>
<div
style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font
color="#666666">@carolinarossini</font></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
</pre>
</body>
</html>