<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">See Hillary Clinton's speech of 2010
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/21/clinton.internet/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/21/clinton.internet/index.html</a><br>
<br>
To quote<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Verdana">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</font>
<blockquote>
<p>The Internet and other technologies are critical to foreign
policy, and those who engage in cyber attacks should face
international condemnation, she said.</p>
<p>"In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's
networks can be an attack on all," she said at The Newseum in
Washington.</p>
<p>Clinton made the comments as search-engine giant Google
threatened
to shut down its operations in China, five years after agreeing
to
allow some censorship in exchange for the right to work in that
country's massive emerging technology market.</p>
<p>Google charges that Chinese hackers have targeted <a
href="http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/google_inc">Google</a>
and up to 34 other companies.</p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>(quote ends)<br>
<br>
Is not unauthorised picking up of more than 6 billion pieces of
information from Indian computers and networks in a single month
an attack on "one nation's networks".... Exactly similar to what
is presented as China having done to Google (here too information
was picked up in an unathourised manner, and not physical damage
to networks or anything else was done)<br>
<br>
Do we still have doubts about US's hypocrisy?? <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:24 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51B72C22.308@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Also noteworthy - about the point of willing
cooperation or not - that Google fails to mention this stuff in
its so called transparency report... What is the justification
for that...<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM,
michael gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.95pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies
were ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``,
it was (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US
jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
Internet dominant companies involved are of course
companies with global reach, global markets, global users
and among the most active purveyors of an open and
free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and the bulk
of the discussion on these matters does not address is
that the other (non-US) users of these services have
essentially no protection under these laws. They/we are
`fair game`. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
some cases/places we have some protection under our own
national laws but given that these laws have no
jurisdiction (or truly effective influence) over the
companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in various
matters particularly in the European context and as is
currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian
Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these
surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of
the US security panic we are all under suspicion until
proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of
authenticating one`s innocence in any lasting way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">M<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kerry Brown<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all
that can be accomplished?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA">The language is too confrontational (i.e.
“notes with horror”). It will never be taken seriously.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA">There is no proof that any of the companies
you mention cooperated willingly. I think that they all
have cooperated within the boundaries of the law but that
is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more
likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods,
some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably
includes data from the mentioned companies. That is
speculation. If we are going to express opinions and
speculation we need to call out that we are doing that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA">Kerry Brown<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-CA">(Proposed text below - very rough first
draft to get things rolling)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN-CA">The Internet Governance Caucus notes with
horror the manner in which the global population is
being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance
by the US government in complicity with US based
companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook,
PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being
against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the
hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a
special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role'
vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are
further troubled that in US government statements on the
PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to
take is to say that they would never do any such thing
to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And
what about the claims of the US government that they are
responsible to the 'global Internet community', a
refrain frequently heard from the US government in the
global Internet governance space? Why the double talk
across spaces where technical management of the Internet
is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy,
security and rights – from political and civil rights to
economic and social rights - get implicated? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN-CA">We are also extremely disappointed by how
the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo,
Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple
– betrayed the trust of their global customers in
cooperating with the US government in such mass scale
surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have
refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may
have been available to these other companies as well.
The denials by some of these companies about allowing
government deep and largely indiscriminate access to
information on their servers seem to run contrary to
most news reports, which have not been contradicted by
US authorities on these aspects. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN-CA">We wonder if there is a pro quid quo
between the US government and these US based Internet
companies with global operations, whereby these
companies help further US government's political,
military, etc interests worldwide and the US government
in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring
an unregulated global space for these Internet
businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by
the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to
maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against
considerable resistance by EU countries. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN-CA">The Internet Governance Caucus demand that
the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and
a special session on this issue. It should also proceed
to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and
principles on digital privacy and basic structures of
legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's
rights in online spaces – both civil and political
rights as well as social and economic rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>