[bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'

Tue Jul 23 21:44:11 EDT 2013

Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only 
for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a 
US government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the 
world, especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all 
security measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal 
framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced 
that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should 
be subject to a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework 
as well.. That alone will work in an environment where we are all  
continually immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least 
hyper-connected, digital space.

So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society 
group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to 
ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, 
including the US, are subject to a clear international regime based on 
human rights, and any such regime should have adequate enforcement 
capabilities.

Can we discuss this here...

While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make 
specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to 
convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for 
global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my 
principal objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, 
but what it does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if 
the statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the 
same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?

Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by 
various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without 
them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ 
coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits 
statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a 
statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called as 
a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an earlier 
statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never signed by the 
group as a whole...

parminder

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
> Board is accepting comments  commentary regarding the US government's 
> surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included 
> some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with 
> this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by 
> CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses 
> on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals 
> outside the US: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be 
> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share 
> any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will 
> be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, 
> we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to 
> circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to 
> solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is 
> a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for 
> submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in 
> the schedule.
>
> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final 
> letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've 
> reached that point.
>
> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad 
> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to 
> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with 
> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to 
> adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We 
> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner 
> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good 
> opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>
> *Background on the letter:*
> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments 
> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As 
> many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on 
> this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance 
> programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in 
> July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human 
> rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We 
> think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that 
> groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about 
> the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage 
> organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this 
> process, in addition to considering signing this letter.
>
> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out 
> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human 
> rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it 
> will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto 
> something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I 
> wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations 
> (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those 
> fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the 
> situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far 
> from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in 
> our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend 
> groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have 
> specific recommendations and actions for the Board.
>
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
> Emma
>
>
> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - 
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to 
> assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in 
> ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are 
> appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, 
> regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against 
> terrorism.
>
> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on 
> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil 
> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform 
> and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members 
> appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board 
> is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the 
> President and supported by an Executive Director and staff.
>
> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch 
> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to 
> protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on 
> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to 
> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, 
> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing 
> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch 
> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to 
> appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, 
> including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the 
> course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the 
> Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic 
> institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties 
> and individuals on these issues.
>
> This agency has published 13 articles 
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> 
> since 1994.
>
>
> -- 
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/779bbbbb/attachment.htm>