<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet Governance issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There are better fora to discuss many subjects than IG - aside from anything else, in other fora the results are binding, where in IG they are not.<div><br></div><div>I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the network carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the network and not the data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule.</div><div><br></div><div>Just because something has a digital dimension doesn’t mean it is in scope for IG.</div><div><br><div><div>On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí <<a href="mailto:lorena@collaboratory.de">lorena@collaboratory.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated,
Nick, it has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension
and about regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I
do think that this is an internet governance issue -however not
exclusively since it affects other political dimensions too.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Lorena<br>
<br>
Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> I think the key issue here is:
how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their national
security and law enforcement activities.<br>
><br>
> This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet
governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that
affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used.<br>
><br>
> On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lorena@collaboratory.de">lorena@collaboratory.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lorena@collaboratory.de"><mailto:lorena@collaboratory.de></a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since
the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own
citizens, within their own national borders and since national
intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties,
the legal hole remains...<br>
>> From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a
tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think
about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage.<br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>> Lorena<br>
>><br>
>> QUOTE FROM PATRIK<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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<br>
>>> <a href="http://necessaryandproportionate.org">necessaryandproportionate.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://necessaryandproportionate.org/"><http://necessaryandproportionate.org/></a> principles, so such
negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by
the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads:<br>
>>> <br>
>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590"><http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17280/a/226590></a><br>
>>> <br>
>>> To this objective, let me propose seven
principles I believe should be observed.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 1. First, legality.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Surveillance needs to be based on laws.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> These laws must be adopted in a transparent
manner through a democratic process.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 2. Second, legitimate aim.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a
legitimate and well-defined aim.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Surveillance measures may never be carried out in
a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified
state authorities.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 3. Third, necessity and adequacy.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> The law should justify that surveillance is
necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 4. Fourth, proportionality.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to
carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its
negative consequences.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 5. Fifth, judicial authority.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Decisions on the use of communications
surveillance should be taken by a competent authority.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> As a general rule, an independent court should
take such decisions.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 6. Sixth, transparency.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> States should be as transparent as possible about
how they carry out surveillance.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> They should provide information on how the
surveillance legislation works in practice.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or
other credible institutions.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to
create transparency and build trust and legitimacy.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Our obligation as governments is to provide
security and to respect human rights - not either or.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Patrik<br>
>>> <br>
>>> END QUOTE<br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>.<br>
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>