<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><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'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kerry Brown<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<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 lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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 lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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 lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Kerry Brown<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><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></body></html>