[bestbits] Reform surveillance

[Anja Kovacs]

This might also be of interest in the framework of this discussion, as
another initiative to push for reforms:

World's leading authors say state surveillance of personal data is theft,
and demand a digital bill of rights,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/surveillance-theft-worlds-leading-authors?CMP=twt_gu

Best,
Anja




On 10 December 2013 21:54, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of
> priorities.  However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US
> citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the
> governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore think
> we need to address both problems, even if one is much more significant as a
> matter of principle.
>
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" <
> mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote:
>
>
> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but
> this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This
> does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google
> should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of
> internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced
> discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a
> nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments
> should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without
> transparency and accountability.
>
> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the
> unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough
> discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to
> collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered
> priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and
> urgent problem.
>
> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the
> issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted
> earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold
> and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to
> do.
>
>
> —Mike
>
>
> --
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM
> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>, Mike Godwin <
> mgodwin at internews.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance
>
> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted
> advertising,  isn't that entangled with the data governments seek?
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" <mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG>,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance
>
>
> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by
> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not
> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to
> do at their end.
>
>
> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote:
> > Mishi quotes the Times:
> >
> >
> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their
> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same
> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated
> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to
> >> legal requests.
> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s
> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting
> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.²  Yes, the agencies
> want
> > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about
> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is
> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences
> > if they have large datasets.
> >
> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like
> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to
> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore,
> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.²
> >
> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and
> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or
> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time
> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies
> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have
> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been
> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users.
> >
> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information
> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say
> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data
> >> systems.
> >>
> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and
> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and
> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a
> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much
> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always
> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.²
> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies
> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹
> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The
> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by
> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply
> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and
> > potential customers (or for them).
> >
> >
> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17
> New York, NY-10023
> (tel) 212-461-1912
> (fax) 212-580-0898
> www.softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director
> SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor
> Jangpura Extn.
> New Delhi-110014
> (tel) +91-11-43587126
> (fax) +91-11-24323530
> www.sflc.in
>
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/f2hWz8+MDeDGX2PQPOmvUhQdr9UqjTk1QiMnSFwB8MDRnYXJ4JW+BADY+tcuKsRBxv0BMu5XlMazbAWAmKJQAw==>to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131210/d57dcbe1/attachment.htm>