[bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jul 26 08:10:33 EDT 2013
Hi Deborah
"We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
protect the human rights not only of U.S.-persons, but also of
non-U.S. persons. We believe that such findings and recommendations
would not only be consistent with the U.S. government's frequently
stated commitment to 'freedom online', but would also constitute a
valuable contribution to developing a global framework for
implementing such protections."
To me, the para read as if a global framework should then be developed
to implement protections that US government will legislate on the advice
of PCLOB. This I think is not the drafters' intention.
And if indeed the above para is to be amended, my organisation will be
willing to sign if it ends in this fashion......" would also constitute
a valuable contribution to developing a global framework in the
concerned area".... Although we remain quite concerned about the extra
ordinary sensitivities in closely evaluating every single word and turn
of phrase with a view that it might not in the least ever suggest that
there could be any international program to pursue in this area as
well.... This is rather un- understandable when the sole topic of this
endeavour is of preserving the rights on non-citizens in the digital
space over which a particular government seem to have jurisdiction and
control - which clearly is an issue pertaining to the governance of the
cross border digital space.
BTW, do remember that in the recent case related to Chevron
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/chevron-ecuador-american-email-legal-activists-journalists>
an US court has clearly ruled that non citizens do not have relevant
constitutional protections...
parminder
On Friday 26 July 2013 09:59 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find the edited PCLOB letter posted on the Best Bits website
> here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/
>
> As Emma noted in her initial email the goal was to have a final draft
> of the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday,
> so we're just a little behind schedule. Hopefully you will find that
> this letter reflects the suggestions on this thread and addresses the
> task at hand.
>
> *Please note that when you endorse the letter on the Best Bits
> website, you will receive a confirmation email, which may land in your
> spam box. You must click on the link in that email, before your
> endorsement displays on the site.
>
> The deadline for submission is 1 August, so I think the goal is to
> close the letter for signatures by end of 31 July. Emma or Matthew,
> can you please confirm? This leaves just under a week for sign on,
> which hopefully is a realistic timeframe.
>
> As was mentioned earlier, international groups are welcome to submit
> their own letters as well, and Anriette made an excellent suggestion
> that Best Bits may want to prepare for other governments. Is anyone
> interested in taking the lead on this?
>
> Finally, since we have a week lead up before submitting this comment
> to PCLOB, should we be trying to get some international press
> coverage? It may be ambitious, but it could be valuable for those who
> support the letter to reach out to media in the countries where they
> are based with coordinated messaging. What do others think?
>
> Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the nuances of our
> position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague, Danny
> O'brien,
> EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the
> international
> angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB. I'm cc-ing
> him to
> the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition initiative.
>
> Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time to look
> at it.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
>
> On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns
> about the
> > risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
> > drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
> >
> > We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and
> add as
> > an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But
> hopefully this
> > will not be necessary.
> >
> > We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
> > therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into
> every
> > single intervention.
> >
> > I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
> > position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad
> idea? Not
> > that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a
> better
> > understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
> >
> > And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
> > other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
> > also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and
> interception.
> >
> > The list goes on.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
> >>
> >> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy
> protections
> >> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
> >> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is
> at present.
> >> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements
> tend to
> >> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I
> am afraid
> >> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many
> of the
> >> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards
> at the
> >> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically,
> including where
> >> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also
> of, for
> >> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
> >> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty
> over the
> >> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users
> around the
> >> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
> >> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what
> we are
> >> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not
> to stop us
> >> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think,
> however, that
> >> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe
> for a
> >> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to
> human rights in
> >> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to
> see global
> >> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that
> might in fact
> >> have the greatest stake in doing so.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Anja
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking
> element
> >>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the
> development of an
> >>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
> >>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
> >>> surveillance State. This is global in nature and will require
> some sort of
> >>> global response and working through this in anticipation of
> the IGF should
> >>> be I think, our major current task.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree
> beyond earlier
> >>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
> >>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of
> "foreigners" in the
> >>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be
> supported as
> >>> amended.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> M****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:
> >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
> >>> *Cc:* <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,
> >>>
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society
> letter to
> >>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US
> persons'****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
> >>>
> >>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a
> global framework
> >>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to
> read "the
> >>> development of a global framework for the implementation of
> protections" or
> >>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already
> have a framework
> >>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that
> governments seem
> >>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance. ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level
> principles that
> >>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new
> legal frameworks
> >>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US
> have been found
> >>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human
> rights regime
> >>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable
> fact -
> >>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space
> produces
> >>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global
> in nature....
> >>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
> >>>
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence
> of their
> >>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral
> component of
> >>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is
> appropriate for civil
> >>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on
> security
> >>> issues in general. ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are
> we asking
> >>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought
> we were asking
> >>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the
> UN. Global
> >>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
> >>>
> >>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point,
> apparently we can
> >>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that
> they would not
> >>> come up with something worse then they have at present.
> However, we cannot
> >>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse
> than what we
> >>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask
> them for the
> >>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
> >>>
> >>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the
> world more
> >>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling
> to do. If even
> >>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing
> ever would. I am
> >>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency
> to trust US
> >>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet.
> I obviously
> >>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a
> well written and
> >>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says,
> but with what
> >>> it does not.
> >>>
> >>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular
> opportunity and end.
> >>> However, (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US
> government to
> >>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection,
> especially now when
> >>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be
> doing,
> >>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a
> discussion here on
> >>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed
> remedy for
> >>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or
> two on global
> >>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the
> points made
> >>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on
> this. At the
> >>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once
> statements are
> >>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between
> a statement
> >>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had
> one abstention
> >>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
> >>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform
> might be
> >>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions,
> the wider
> >>> world might not.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
> statements
> >>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our
> attention on
> >>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are
> appropriate (or
> >>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out
> mixed messages
> >>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts
> that go
> >>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear
> other
> >>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and best,
> >>> Anja****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:****
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing
> support for
> >>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the
> PCLOB
> >>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
> >>>
> >>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its
> weaknesses foster
> >>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric. EFF want a Church Committee,
> >>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress
> or at
> >>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
> >>> investigate.
> >>>
> >>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
> >>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
> >>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
> >>>
> >>> For more information on our asks please check out:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>> Dear all
> >>>>
> >>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for
> Comment by
> >>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding
> the US
> >>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
> FISA. I
> >>>> think the letter is already too long.
> >>>>
> >>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments
> are, the more
> >>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> >>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference
> global
> >>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and
> purpose of
> >>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> >>>>
> >>>> This letter makes three key points:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal
> framework
> >>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> >>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> >>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702
> must meets
> >>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and
> liberty****
> >>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin
> the PCLOB's*
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>>> statutory mandate.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could add something along the following lines:
> >>>>
> >>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the
> PCLOB that
> >>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in
> the context
> >>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with
> the US
> >>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom
> online'; it would
> >>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual
> development of a
> >>>> global framework for such protections.
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
> 'Americans'.
> >>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> >>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings'
> as the
> >>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
> >>>>
> >>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
> protect
> >>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S.
> persons who
> >>>> live outside the United States."
> >>>>
> >>>> Ciao
> >>>>
> >>>> Anriette
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US
> to also
> >>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> >>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security,
> and then
> >>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a
> prime party to
> >>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> >>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing
> can really
> >>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned
> about
> >>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal
> frameworks'
> >>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything
> concrete, does the
> >>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new
> 'strong legal
> >>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise
> forms.. Why cant
> >>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont
> have our
> >>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :)
> )... At
> >>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the
> need, at
> >>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong
> legal
> >>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at
> the level of
> >>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of
> opinion here
> >>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which
> case it is
> >>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parminder
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> >>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points. I'd
> like to
> >>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. The question about how to refer to previous statements
> generated
> >>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we
> may need a
> >>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
> >>>>>> signatories were. We still need to discuss at the next
> BestBits
> >>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance
> should be.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of
> what type
> >>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we
> should be
> >>>>>> galvanizing around. Maybe even a simple call for the UN to
> engage a
> >>>>>> discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to
> consider how
> >>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would
> be a path
> >>>>>> forward? Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I
> wouldn't want
> >>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
> >>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global
> discussion and
> >>>>>> global policy engagement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
> >>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be
> pragmatic about
> >>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base
> PCLOB. This
> >>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle,
> but it is
> >>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
> >>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents. The US needs global input
> to wake
> >>>>>> it up to its broader obligations. This may not be enough
> to change
> >>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based
> NGO advocacy
> >>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government. So even
> if this is
> >>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to
> something
> >>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could
> influence US
> >>>>>> policymakers.
> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> >>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 <tel:202-407-8818> | @cendemtech
> <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
> >>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --****
> >>>
> >>> Katitza Rodriguez
> >>> International Rights Director
> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
> >>> katitza at datos-personales.org
> <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
> >>>
> >>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights
> and freedom
> >>> of speech since 1990****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> >>> The Internet Democracy Project
> >>>
> >>> +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
> katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
> (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
> freedom
> of speech since 1990
>
>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/fbf6d118/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list