<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Anja/ All<br>
<br>
On Thursday 25 July 2013 04:59 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's
comments:<br>
<br>
</div>
In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy
protections could contribute to resolving these issues in a
significant manner. Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure
how feasible this is at present. As they are necessarily based
on compromise, global agreements tend to congeal around the
lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid these
will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
democracies that one would hope would push for higher
standards at the moment seem to be setting the bar too low
domestically, including where privacy is concerned. This is
true not only of the US but also of, for example, India. In
these circumstances, I am worried that a global agreement will
be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users
around the world, something I would not consider a gain. My
reformulation of Anriette's formulation was simply meant to
foreground that what we are asking for is the implementation
of existing human rights, not to stop us from creating a
debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that the
best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe
for a global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment
to human rights in these areas domestically. It is countries
that would like to see global coordination on a wide range of
issues beyond privacy that might in fact have the greatest
stake in doing so.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not that just 'countries' (by which I understand you mean
'governments') want 'global coordination of a wide range of issues'
- I want it, people like me and groups like us want it - for very
legitimate public interest purposes. So, it cannot be made
conditional on governments first exhibiting a high standard of
behaviour. <br>
<br>
Also, based on what standard of behaviour of the US government are
we petitioning it to review its legal framework, and not afraid that
in the process it just may make it more water-tight for its statist
objectives? Correspondingly, what different standards exist for UN
members that they should not be similarly petitioned to bring in
normative/legal framework that could have an influence on all
countries.<br>
<br>
We all know that there are a lot of crooks in the Indian parliament,
so can we therefore proposition that politicians should have a
particular demonstrated standard of behaviour before we will accept
the legitimacy of our parliaments. This is simply to let the
dominant powers rule the roost... We know a lot of forces/ people in
India who use such arguments in terms of our domestic politics,
which to me are simply anti-politics and anti-democratic. <br>
<br>
The right to information legislation in India is a good example. It
is so so very damaging to the politicians and the bureaucrats - but
is it not the parliament that passed it... I just think we need to
believe more in politics and democracy - not just in theory, but in
practice...<br>
<br>
Your blanket claim "As they are necessarily based on compromise,
global agreements tend to congeal around the lowest common
denominators" can be held against any representational democratic
system.... I think you must see all the global agreements that are
rather 'high' in terms to the values they uphold starting from the
human rights documents, and if you are inclined towards more
'enforcing kind' of stuff, documents about the International Court
of Justice....<br>
<br>
This said, I do realise that in matters that are of special core
interest to the state, like security and surveillance, one has to be
extra cautious .... But, now getting to a practical level, power
has to be confronted with power..... US wont change its ways because
of a civil society petition, we will need to assemble global
pressure over it, and similarly over other countries regarding their
respective wrong doings... For this we need legitimate global
governance systems, and to the extent possible enforcement
capabilities... I am not ready to support moves that, directly or
indirectly, cement, US's extra-ordinarily pre-eminent role in the
Internet space and the Internet-mediated social structures. To
evidently show belief and trust in the US government system and not
at all in the UN system to me does precisely that....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>My 2 cents.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Anja <br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@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 bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I
agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward
looking element which would deal with the most
fundamental issue--the development of an integrated
(if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical
community(?)) surveillance State. This is global in
nature and will require some sort of global response
and working through this in anticipation of the IGF
should be I think, our major current task.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">However,
I think the letter goes a very considerable degree
beyond earlier such position statements from major
(particularly US) CS actors in recognizing the
legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in
the current US discussion and on that basis I think
it should be supported as amended.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,</span></p>
<div class="im"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for
comment: civil society letter to PCLOB re: human
rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US
persons'</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23
PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:</p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks and best,<br>
Anja</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 24 July 2013 20:00,
Katitza Rodriguez <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:katitza@eff.org"
target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> rights of non-U.S.
persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the
PCLOB's</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> 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"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">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>
--</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Katitza Rodriguez<br>
International Rights Director<br>
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:katitza@eff.org"
target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org"
target="_blank">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</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>