<div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000">Dear all,</font><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000">First, thank you Parminder for raising this important concern. Some of the original drafters of the text, as well as those who had commented on this particular sentence, made a concerted effort to clarify and incorporate the various views and concerns expressed on the sentence in question. The following formulation was reached as a compromise:</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">"We believe that such findings and recommendations would not only be consistent with the U.S. government’s frequently stated commitment to ‘freedom online’, but would also constitute a valuable contribution to developing and implementing a robust global framework for such protections."<br>
</font></div><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div style><div><font color="#000000">Recognizing that this was not a perfect process and that we'll need to strive to do better in the future, I hope many on this list be able to support this text and recognize the effort that went into trying to accommodate various viewpoints.</font></div>
</div><div style><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000">The text has been updated to reflect this small change, and is available for sign on here: <a href="http://bestbits.net/pclob/">http://bestbits.net/pclob/</a></font></div>
<div style><br></div><div style><font color="#000000">Best regards, <br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000">Deborah </font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:10 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Hi Deborah<br>
</font>
<blockquote><br>
<font face="Verdana">"We urge you to make recommendations and
findings designed to protect the human rights not only of
U.S.-persons, but also of non-U.S. persons. We believe that such
findings and recommendations would not only be consistent with
the U.S. government’s frequently stated commitment to ‘freedom
online’, but would also constitute a valuable contribution to
developing a global framework for implementing such
protections."</font></blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">To me, the para read as if a global framework
should then be developed to implement protections that US
government will legislate on the advice of PCLOB. This I think is
not the drafters' intention</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">.<br>
<br>
</font>And if indeed the above para is to be amended, my
organisation will be willing to sign if it ends in this fashion</font><font face="Verdana">......"</font> <font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">would also constitute a valuable contribution to
developing a global framework in the concerned area"</font></font><font face="Verdana">.... Although we remain quite concerned about the
extra ordinary sensitivities in closely evaluating every single
word and turn of phrase with a view that it might not in the least
ever suggest that there could be any international program to
pursue in this area as well.... This is rather un- understandable
when the sole topic of this endeavour is of preserving the rights
on non-citizens in the digital space over which a particular
government seem to have jurisdiction and control - which clearly
is an issue pertaining to the governance of the cross border
digital space.<br>
<br>
BTW, do remember that in the recent <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/chevron-ecuador-american-email-legal-activists-journalists" target="_blank">case
related to Chevron</a> an US court has clearly ruled that non
citizens do not have relevant constitutional protections... <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></font><div><div class="h5">
<div>On Friday 26 July 2013 09:59 AM,
Deborah Brown wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please find the edited PCLOB letter posted on the Best Bits
website here: <a href="http://bestbits.net/pclob/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/pclob/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
As Emma noted in her initial email the goal was to have a
final draft of the letter text available to circulate during
the day on Thursday, so we're just a little behind schedule.
Hopefully you will find that this letter reflects the
suggestions on this thread and addresses the task at hand.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>*Please note that when you endorse the letter on the Best
Bits website, you will receive a confirmation email, which may
land in your spam box. You must click on the link in that
email, before your endorsement displays on the site.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The deadline for submission is 1 August, so I think the
goal is to close the letter for signatures by end of 31 July.
Emma or Matthew, can you please confirm? This leaves just
under a week for sign on, which hopefully is a realistic
timeframe.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As was mentioned earlier, international groups are welcome
to submit their own letters as well, and<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> Anriette
made an excellent suggestion that Best Bits may want to
prepare for other governments. Is anyone interested in
taking the lead on this?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Finally,
since we have a week lead up before submitting this comment
to PCLOB, should we be trying to get some international
press coverage? It may be ambitious, but it could be
valuable for those who support the letter to reach out to
media in the countries where they are based with coordinated
messaging. What do others think?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Best
regards, <br>
Deborah </span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM,
Katitza Rodriguez <span dir="ltr"><<a 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">
Hi Anriette,<br>
<br>
I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the
nuances of our<br>
position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague,
Danny O'brien,<br>
EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the
international<br>
angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB. I'm
cc-ing him to<br>
the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition
initiative.<br>
<br>
Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time
to look at it.<br>
<br>
<a 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>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Katitza<br>
<div>
<div><br>
On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
> Hi all<br>
><br>
> I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share
her concerns about the<br>
> risks attached to a global agreement. And great
work to the main<br>
> drafters.. I should have said this before. Just
one other thought.<br>
><br>
> We could, theoretically, keep the letter short
and concise, and add as<br>
> an addendum a document that raises broader
concerns. But hopefully this<br>
> will not be necessary.<br>
><br>
> We should try to remember that we are acting on
multiple fronts and<br>
> therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns
and demands into every<br>
> single intervention.<br>
><br>
> I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the
light of EFF's<br>
> position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this
letter is a bad idea? Not<br>
> that I think we should not send it, I would just
like to have a better<br>
> understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits
letter.<br>
><br>
> And then another thought. Should Best Bits not
also draft letters to<br>
> other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions
India. South Africa<br>
> also has VERY problematic legislation around
monitoring and interception.<br>
><br>
> The list goes on.<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
>> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis
Parminder's comments:<br>
>><br>
>> In theory I do think that a strong global
framework on privacy protections<br>
>> could contribute to resolving these issues in
a significant manner.<br>
>> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how
feasible this is at present.<br>
>> As they are necessarily based on compromise,
global agreements tend to<br>
>> congeal around the lowest common
denominators. At the moment, I am afraid<br>
>> these will set the bar too low, not in the
least because many of the<br>
>> democracies that one would hope would push
for higher standards at the<br>
>> moment seem to be setting the bar too low
domestically, including where<br>
>> privacy is concerned. This is true not only
of the US but also of, for<br>
>> example, India. In these circumstances, I am
worried that a global<br>
>> agreement will be used first and foremost to
cement sovereignty over the<br>
>> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of
Internet users around the<br>
>> world, something I would not consider a gain.
My reformulation of<br>
>> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to
foreground that what we are<br>
>> asking for is the implementation of existing
human rights, not to stop us<br>
>> from creating a debate on this issue. I
continue to think, however, that<br>
>> the best way countries can flag that the time
is genuinely ripe for a<br>
>> global framework is by demonstrating a clear
commitment to human rights in<br>
>> these areas domestically. It is countries
that would like to see global<br>
>> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond
privacy that might in fact<br>
>> have the greatest stake in doing so.<br>
>><br>
>> My 2 cents.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Anja<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I agree with Parminder that the letter
lacks a forward looking element<br>
>>> which would deal with the most
fundamental issue--the development of an<br>
>>> integrated (if to a very limited degree
multi-polar) ubiquitous<br>
>>> multi-stakeholder--States+private
sector+technical community(?))<br>
>>> surveillance State. This is global in
nature and will require some sort of<br>
>>> global response and working through this
in anticipation of the IGF should<br>
>>> be I think, our major current task.****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> However, I think the letter goes a very
considerable degree beyond earlier<br>
>>> such position statements from major
(particularly US) CS actors in<br>
>>> recognizing the legitimate
concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the<br>
>>> current US discussion and on that basis I
think it should be supported as<br>
>>> amended.****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> M****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> *From:* <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>
[mailto:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>]
*On Behalf Of *parminder<br>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM<br>
>>> *Cc:* <,<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,<br>
>>><br>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for
comment: civil society letter to<br>
>>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA
surveillance of 'non-US persons'****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja
Kovacs wrote:****<br>
>>><br>
>>> I also liked Anriette's language on the
"development of a global framework<br>
>>> for protection", though I would suggest
we slightly edit it to read "the<br>
>>> development of a global framework for the
implementation of protections" or<br>
>>> something along those lines. The reason
is that we already have a framework<br>
>>> for protections, ie the human rights
framework, but that governments seem<br>
>>> to be happy to disregard this when it
comes to surveillance. ****<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> But so does the US have in place all
kinds of higher level principles that<br>
>>> do cover such issues; then why does the
letter ask for new legal frameworks<br>
>>> from the US government? As the current
frameworks in the US have been found<br>
>>> inadequate, so could it be held true for
the global human rights regime<br>
>>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because
it is an undeniable fact -<br>
>>> although often selectively denied - that
the digital space produces<br>
>>> entirely new realities, which are also
unprecedentedly global in nature....<br>
>>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...<br>
>>><br>
>>> ****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> Until governments worldwide give
considerably greater evidence of their<br>
>>> willingness to make the protection of
human rights an integral component of<br>
>>> their surveillance plans, I do not think
that it is appropriate for civil<br>
>>> society to push for a more comprehensive
global framework on security<br>
>>> issues in general. ****<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever
asked for one..... Are we asking<br>
>>> the US government for new a framework on
security, I thought we were asking<br>
>>> for a new framework on privacy
protection.... so also for the UN. Global<br>
>>> framework for privacy protection, not for
security.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to
make my point, apparently we can<br>
>>> ask the US to develop new legal
frameworks, and trust that they would not<br>
>>> come up with something worse then they
have at present. However, we cannot<br>
>>> at all trust the UN to not come up with
legal frameworks worse than what we<br>
>>> have at present, and therefore we should
not ever even ask them for the<br>
>>> 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<br>
>>> than we can trust the UN... This is
something I am unwilling to do. If even<br>
>>> Snowden did not teach us the right
lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am<br>
>>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a
widespread tendency to trust US<br>
>>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of
the global Internet. I obviously<br>
>>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first
posting, it is a well written and<br>
>>> argued letter, but the problem with it is
not what it says, but with what<br>
>>> it does not.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am not against focussing a letter on a
particular opportunity and end.<br>
>>> However, (1) PCLOB is not the wrong
agency to advice the US government to<br>
>>> consider global legal frameworks on
privacy protection, especially now when<br>
>>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other
countries could also be doing,<br>
>>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did
want to have a discussion here on<br>
>>> whether the group considers global
frameworks as also a needed remedy for<br>
>>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see
how adding a line or two on global<br>
>>> frameworks would throw the letter out of
focus.....<br>
>>><br>
>>> parminder<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best
Bits statement", the points made<br>
>>> here are important and we do indeed need
greater clarity on this. At the<br>
>>> same time, it's also important to keep in
mind that once statements are<br>
>>> shared with the wider world, maintaining
a distinction between a statement<br>
>>> supported by all (though even on the Baku
one I think we had one abstention<br>
>>> by the way, and in any case the Baku
group was fairly small) and a<br>
>>> statement shared and promoted through the
Best Bits platform might be<br>
>>> difficult - even if we are careful to
make these distinctions, the wider<br>
>>> world might not.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for
a model in which ALL statements<br>
>>> are considered to be in the latter
category, and focus our attention on<br>
>>> coming up with criteria for which type of
statements are appropriate (or<br>
>>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried
that sending out mixed messages<br>
>>> will only undermine the effectiveness of
the advocacy efforts that go<br>
>>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course
be very happy to hear other<br>
>>> possible solutions to that conundrum as
well.****<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks and best,<br>
>>> Anja****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez
<<a href="mailto:katitza@eff.org" target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a>>
wrote:****<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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>
>>><br>
>>> <a 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>
>>><br>
>>> <a 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>
>>> ****<br>
>>><br>
>>><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>
>>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside
the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*<br>
>>> ***<br>
>>><br>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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 href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>>
wrote:<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>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>> <a 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<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>
>>>>>>>> <<br>
>>> <a 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>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>> <a 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>
>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>> <<br>
>>> <a 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>
>>>>>>>> <a href="tel:202-407-8818" value="+12024078818" target="_blank">202-407-8818</a>
| @cendemtech <<a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech</a>>
|<br>
>>>>>>>> @ellanso <<a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --****<br>
>>><br>
>>> Katitza Rodriguez<br>
>>> International Rights Director<br>
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:katitza@eff.org" target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a><br>
>>> <a 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****<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
>>> The Internet Democracy Project<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="tel:%2B91%209899028053" value="+919899028053" target="_blank">+91 9899028053</a> | @anjakovacs<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a>****<br>
>>><br>
>>> ** **<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Katitza Rodriguez<br>
International Rights Director<br>
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a href="mailto:katitza@eff.org" target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a><br>
<a 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<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">Access | AccessNow.org</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">deborah@accessnow.org</a></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Access | AccessNow.org</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">deborah@accessnow.org</a></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div></div>
</div>