<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted
in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty
cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? Anyway they can accept the
principles, so I guess this is just maybe about how we word interventions.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>QUOTE FROM PATRIK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and
support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed
up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the </DIV>
<DIV>necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A
counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt
that reads:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><<A
href="http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590">http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590</A>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be
observed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. First, legality.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Surveillance needs to be based on laws.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic
process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure
that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance,
technological advances is properly debated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. Second, legitimate aim.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and
well-defined aim.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or
discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. Third, necessity and adequacy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to
achieve the legitimate aim.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Fourth, proportionality.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether
the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>5. Fifth, judicial authority.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a
competent authority.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>6. Sixth, transparency.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out
surveillance.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works
in practice.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible
institutions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build
trust and legitimacy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human
rights - not either or.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Patrik</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>END QUOTE</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=anriette@apc.org
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">Anriette Esterhuysen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:07 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jeanette@wzb.eu href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">Jeanette
Hofmann</A> ; <A title=bestbits@lists.bestbits.net
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A> ; <A
title=ian.peter@ianpeter.com href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">Ian Peter</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial
document</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline"><FONT
face=Arial>Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed.<BR><BR>I
propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to work on
the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go.<BR><BR>But this
is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not just mass
surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US government. It is
important for the long term.<BR><BR>Anriette<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu type="cite">I think that
particularly because necessary and proportionate has been in the document
before and refers to principles that have broad political support, chances are
good to get this language back in. It is definitely worth fighting for!
<BR><BR>jeanette <BR><BR>Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR>On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter
wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Hi everyone, <BR>To me one of the weakest sections
of the document is the paragraph <BR>dealing with surveillance issues
(para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads <BR>“Internet surveillance – Mass and
arbitrary surveillance undermines <BR>trust in the Internet and trust in
the Internet governance ecosystem. <BR>Surveillance of communications,
their interception, and the collection <BR>of personal data, including
mass surveillance, interception and <BR>collection should be conducted in
accordance with states’ obligations <BR>under international human rights
law. More dialogue is needed on this <BR>topic at the international level
using forums like IGF and the Human <BR>Rights Council aiming to develop a
common understanding on all the <BR>related aspects”. <BR>This fairly weak
language and action line (more dialogue) is not <BR>surprising given the
governmental input (including US Government) into <BR>the drafting. So far
the only comment on this is from me, where I <BR>suggest reference
to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You of course know that reference to 'necessary and
proportionate' was <BR>there in the original draft and it got removed...
What are the chances <BR>then it will be reinstated at your request?
<BR><BR>parminder <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I think it would be useful if others commented as
individuals. Perhaps <BR>what we need is some better wording (which
perhaps governments would <BR>be embarrassed not to include), and which
would strengthen the <BR>response here. In any case, some wording and
indication of level of <BR>concern to ensure that this is discussed on the
floor of the meeting <BR>rather than simply passed by as an adequate
wording would be useful! <BR>Ian Peter <BR>The site for entering responses
is <BR><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/">http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/</A>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</A>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</A>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</PRE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>