<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 11 June 2013 08:22 PM,
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8NF01d5X-Ad7-7rf5qEpFzZs=qiTdYfRLfh4v0ri4ihg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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">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>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="">Unfortunately the answer is pretty simple:
they are prohibited by US law to mention this kind of
requests. Whether this is something appropriate is another
matter, but it is US laws. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
Google has been very proactive and even innovative in revealing all
that it can in similar cases in other countries... US law may have
prohibited them from telling about each request or even the overall
numbers.... However, I dont think it could prohibit them from having
told us that some such program exists about foreign information
sources about which they, i ie is Google, is not authorised to
divulge details... Such a disclaimer should have been carried under
the US section in every year's transparency report.. This is the
minimum requirement of transparency.. They do mention in case of
other countries when they are not authorised to divulge
information. Why not in the country of the 'first amendment'....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH8NF01d5X-Ad7-7rf5qEpFzZs=qiTdYfRLfh4v0ri4ihg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">B.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM, michael
gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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`. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">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"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Is 'tit
for tat' all that can be accomplished?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-CA"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-CA"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-CA">Kerry Brown</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"
lang="EN-CA"> </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)</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? </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. </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. </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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-CA"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle
<div>Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director,
International Diplomatic Academy (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a>)</div>
<div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
humans")</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>