<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Tom,</div><div>"<em>Civil society must acknowledge that the nation-state has a vital role in matters of security. And we must accept that an institutional aversion to failure in these matters is natural. <br>
<br> With this awareness we can ask that nation-state participants in multistakeholder talks present a "statement of needs." This statement should present in general scope, and as much detail as practicable, the nature of relationships sought by government to meet these needs."</em><br>
</div><div> </div><div>I like this approach. There has to be some understanding of the difficulties faced the world over by Governments, they have primary responsibility for a nation's health, education and welfare and in no lesser way the security of their people, infrastructure, and capital. </div>
<div>There have to be strategies to combat the myriad of security issues that face both Governments and us the citizens. Always there will be the need for balance between security and personal privacy. </div><div> </div><div>
As natural as electricity finding the path with least resistance, according the this article, Governments have been utilizing the conglomerates with large databases of personal information and the ability to track individual activities, especially within the cyber environment to provide them with raw data for their intelligence analyses, and to inform their various Government's policy decisions.</div>
<div> </div><div>The inherent danger in this of course is the need for reciprocity. Conglomerates are profit centered so it is clear their payback from government will be any perks, allowances, incentives or competitive intelligence that will improve their bottom line. Hence the long-term negative impacts warned about by Ike and now realized in our day. Governments in bed with conglomerates in secret, is a clear recipe for inequality, injustice, inequity and certainly not a level playing field for the ordinary citizen. The loss of privacy therefore just adds painful stings to the wounds our people face. </div>
<div> </div><div>Civil Society is supposed to be the structure through which the ordinary citizen's voice can be heard in the hallowed halls of exalted policy decision making. I have read and listened to dialogues, speeches, position papers, conventions, and treaties. I am often left wondering how much of these would the ordinary citizen understand and could empathise with. Is it that there is a different language for civil society leaders use to speak on behalf of their constituencies?</div>
<div> </div><div>So there seems to be a disconnect between the structures and administrations that represent our interests and an understanding of what our real needs are. There has to be a concerted effort to have direct contact between state and non-state actors, especially now that we can reach over 40% of the populations via the internet, and the real-time nature of the information derived therefrom.</div>
<div> </div><div>If not the gulf will continue to widen between the haves and the have nots, and the top of the wealth pyramid will continue to have smaller angles even as the base gets wider.</div><div> </div><div>Devon</div>
<div> </div><div> </div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com" target="_blank">toml@communisphere.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
Folks,<br>
<br>
Below is an insightful article by former FCC Commissioner <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Copps" target="_blank">Michael Copps</a>
on his experiences with national security interests while at the
FCC. Copps' experiences led me to ponder how civil society might
enter into a trusting multistakeholder negotiation knowing of these
close relationships between government and industry. Here's one
approach.<br>
<br>
Civil society must acknowledge that the nation-state has a vital
role in matters of security. And we must accept that an
institutional aversion to failure in these matters is natural. <br>
<br>
With this awareness we can ask that nation-state participants in
multistakeholder talks present a "statement of needs." This
statement should present in general scope, and as much detail as
practicable, the nature of relationships sought by government to
meet these needs.<br>
<br>
Working from these understandings civil society can enter into a
trusting relationship in Brazil and elsewhere. <br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>
<div><a href="http://benton.org/node/168060?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">Click
here to view this message on the web.</a></div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<a href="http://benton.org/headlines/feed?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank"><img width="16" height="16" title="Syndicate content" alt="Syndicate
content" border="0"></a>
<a href="http://twitter.com/benton_fdn?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank"><img width="16" height="16" alt="Twitter" border="0"></a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Benton-Foundation/49570099560?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank"><img width="16" height="16" alt="Facebook icon" border="0"></a>
<a href="http://benton.org/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank"><img width="16" height="16" alt="Benton icon" border="0"></a><br>
<p>[<em>The Benton Foundation publishes articles penned by
Commissioner Copps each month for our <a href="http://benton.org/blog?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Digital Beat Blog</a>.</em>]</p>
<p><strong><span>The Long Arm of the National
Security-Communications Industry Complex</span></strong></p>
<p>This is a story about more than just the national
security implications of government surveillance, but it
begins there.</p>
<p>The <a title="C.I.A. Is Said to Pay AT&T for Call Data" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/cia-is-said-to-pay-att-for-call-data.html?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">New York Times reported in a front page
story</a> earlier this month that the <a title="CIA" href="https://www.cia.gov/index.html?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Central Intelligence Agency</a>
is paying AT&T in excess of $10 million annually for
information from the company’s telephone records,
including the international calls of U.S. citizens. The
article pointed out that this work "is conducted under a
voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders
compelling the company to participate, according to
officials." The story adds yet another chapter to the
still-unfolding revelations about <a title="NSA" href="http://www.nsa.gov/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">National Security Agency</a>
surveillance. Every week seems to bring new reports about
the close and almost seamless ties that bind the several
intelligence agencies to the huge telecom and broadband
companies that bestride our nation’s communications
infrastructure. </p>
<p>When I became a Member of the <a title="FCC" href="http://www.fcc.gov/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Federal Communications
Commission</a> (FCC) in 2001, I assumed I would be privy
to at least a credible amount of information about what
the companies under FCC oversight were doing behind the
scenes. My expectations went unfulfilled. </p>
<p>Did I expect the nation’s most sensitive intelligence
information to be shared with me? No, I did not. But would
it have been helpful for me to know more about how the
industry executives who visited me on a whole range of
non-national security communications industry issues were
at the same time working hand-in-glove with the White
House and these secretive agencies on a far more intimate
and confidential basis than I was? Yes, absolutely. </p>
<p>Warnings about various special interest-government
complexes hearken back to <a title="President Eisenhower warns us of the military
industrial complex" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY&utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">President Dwight
Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech</a> wherein he warned
of the dangers that the military-industrial complex held
for democratic government. Historians consider Ike’s
admonition as a high-point of his Presidency. Since that
speech almost 53 years ago, the influence of special
interests and corporate power has only grown -- at the
White House, in Congress, and among the federal agencies.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m a slow learner, or maybe I just wasn’t supposed
to know, but it finally dawned on me that the CEOs and top
management who came calling on me at the FCC were far
better informed and connected than I was -- because their
companies were the ones running these sensitive monitoring
and surveillance operations in behalf of the national
security agencies. It was, very often, their workers and
their technologies that drove the process. Meanwhile,
industry leaders themselves served on such influential but
hush-hush boards as The <a title="NSTAC" href="http://www.dhs.gov/nstac?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">President’s National
Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee</a>. </p>
<p>As I began to grasp the power of these huge companies to
leverage their influence on non-national security matters,
I also began to understand that my influence as a
Commissioner at an independent federal agency was more
limited than I had thought. In <a title="http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-america-s-top-tech-companies-created-the-surveillance-state-20130725" href="http://?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">a lengthy July 25, 2013 article in the
National Journal, Chief Correspondent Michael Hirsh</a>
traced in considerable detail how our nation’s leading
telecom and tech companies supported -- and even helped
create -- the “surveillance state.” It is, of course, a
story going back long before Iraq and Afghanistan to the
days of World War II, and it’s the stuff of a thriller
novel -- except it’s not that entertaining.</p>
<p>Hirsh tells how the NSA became an influential voice in
the evolution of our communications systems, becoming a
“major presence” in such seemingly non-defense decisions
as industry mergers and consolidations. But these
transactions weren’t “non-defense” to the intelligence
agencies. On the contrary, it was easier and more
efficient for the agencies to deal with huge industry
players where the number of decision-makers was narrowed
and where the sheer power of size helped get the national
security job done. </p>
<p>It wasn’t news to me that these huge companies wielded
far-reaching power all across Washington. I just didn’t
realize how much power until I had been there a while.
Then I began to think: <em>what difference does it make
if one or two Commissioners at the FCC don’t approve of
a pending merger between telecom giants?</em> (And,
goodness knows, there are plenty of such transactions!) I
conjured up images of a national security agency meeting
at the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">White House</a> and someone saying, <em>“This
guy Copps down at the FCC is opposed to this merger.”</em>
And I could envision a White House or national security
type saying, <em>“So what? These companies are working
with us on all kinds of secret projects, and that takes
precedence over any Commissioner’s worries about
diminishing competition in communications or about
consumer protection.”</em> </p>
<p>And so the consolidation bazaar rolls on, companies
continue to merge, and we find ourselves in a world
wherein a few dominant players drive the last spikes into
the coffin of competition. I am not arguing that national
security concerns alone brought us to this point; there
are plenty of other reasons that Big Telecom wants to grow
even bigger. I <strong><em>am</em></strong> saying that
both parties to this national security-communications
industry complex derived great benefits (in their eyes)
from this partnership. I <strong><em>am</em></strong>
saying the tentacles of this cooperative enterprise reach
widely and deeply into many aspects of our national life.
And I <strong><em>am</em></strong> saying the American
people need to know more -- much more -- about this.</p>
<p>We can argue the pros and cons of national security
surveillance, and it is a debate worth having. But this
debate needs to be informed by facts. Maybe we can’t have
all the facts in all their detail, but certainly we need
more than we presently possess. There is a point where
national security depends upon secrecy. There is also a
point where national security depends upon sunlight. The
balance is sadly out-of-whack right now, and we are paying
the price in the loss of government credibility both at
home and abroad. </p>
<p>Finally, we need to conduct this discussion in a broader
context because it is part of even larger issues. Every
day brings non-national security revelations about
companies developing and deploying new ways to invade our
personal space, capture every available fact about our
daily lives and habits, and share them for purely
commercial benefit. This is not an issue separate from
what I have been discussing in this piece. And, as deeply
troubling as the privacy and consumer issues are, the
implications for democracy are just as severe. Open
communications are a prerequisite of self-government. Any
short-circuiting of this openness diminishes the ability
of free people to chart their own democratic future. </p>
<hr>
Michael Copps served as a commissioner on the Federal
Communications Commission from May 2001 to December 2011 and
was the FCC's Acting Chairman from January to June 2009. His
years at the Commission have been highlighted by his strong
defense of "the public interest"; outreach to what he calls
"non-traditional stakeholders" in the decisions of the FCC,
particularly minorities, Native Americans and the various
disabilities communities; and actions to stem the tide of
what he regards as excessive consolidation in the nation's
media and telecommunications industries. In 2012, former
Commissioner Copps joined Common Cause to lead its Media and
Democracy Reform Initiative. Common Cause is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John
Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard
in the political process and to hold their elected leaders
accountable to the public interest.
</div>
<p><a href="http://benton.org/newsletter/confirm/remove/b2cdaabc4f769t97?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">Unsubscribe
from this newsletter</a></p>
<p><a href="http://benton.org/forward?path=node/&utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">Forward
this newsletter</a></p>
<p>--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news
summary service provided by the Benton Foundation (<a title="www.benton.org" href="http://www.benton.org?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.benton.org</a>).
Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates
on important industry developments, policy issues, and other
related news events. While the summaries are factually
accurate, their often informal tone does not always
represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are
compiled by Kevin Taglang -- we welcome your comments.<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
(c)Benton Foundation 2013. Redistribution of this email
publication -- both internally and externally -- is
encouraged if it includes this message. For
subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT
org<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
The Benton Foundation (<a title="www.benton.org" href="http://www.benton.org?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.benton.org</a>)
works to realize the social benefits made possible by the
public interest use of communications. Bridging the worlds
of philanthropy, public policy, and community action, Benton
seeks to shape the emerging communications environment and
to demonstrate the value of communications for solving
social problems.<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Kevin Taglang<br>
Editor, Communications-related Headlines<br>
Benton Foundation<br>
Communications in the Public Interest<br>
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200<br>
Washington, DC 20036<br>
headlines AT benton DOT org</p>
</div>
</div>
<img width="1" height="1" style="border-width: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important;" alt="" border="0">
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Devon Blake<br>ICT and Development Consultant<br>29 Dominica Drive <br>Kgn 5<br>,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632<br><br>To be kind, To be helpful, To network<br>
<b><i>Earthwise ... For Life!</i></b><br><div style="padding:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;overflow:hidden;word-wrap:break-word;color:black;font-size:10px;text-align:left;line-height:130%"></div>
</div>